Chapter 19 Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas Principal author: CONTENTS Jamie Pittock • Introduction Supporting authors: • Freshwater ecosystems Max Finlayson, Angela H. Arthington, Dirk Roux, John H. Matthews, • Managing specific freshwater ecosystems Harry Biggs, Esther Blom, Rebecca Flitcroft, Ray Froend, Ian Harrison, Virgilio Hermoso, Wolfgang Junk, Ritesh Kumar, • Managing freshwater protected areas in the landscape Simon Linke, Jeanne Nel, Catia Nunes da Cunha, Ajit Pattnaik, • Conclusion Sharon Pollard, Walter Rast, Michele Thieme, Eren Turak, • References Jane Turpie, Lara van Niekerk, Daphne Willems and Joshua Viers Principal author JANE TURPIE is Director of Anchor Environmental Consultants and Deputy Director of the Environmental Economics Policy JAMIE PITTOCK is Associate Professor in the Fenner School Research Unit at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. of Environment and Society at The Australian National University, Canberra. LARA VAN NIEKERK is a Senior Scientist at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in South Africa. Supporting authors DAPHNE WILLEMS is a senior river ecologist working in the field of integral nature development for Stroming BV/Daphnia–Vision on MAX FINLAYSON is Director of the Institute for Land, Water and Rivers, the Netherlands. Society and Professor for Ecology and Biodiversity at Charles Sturt University, Australia. JOSHUA VIERS is an Associate Professor in the School of Engineering, University of California Merced, USA. ANGELA H. ARTHINGTON is Emeritus Professor in the Faculty of Environmental Science at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. Acknowledgments JOHN H. MATTHEWS is Co-Chair of the Alliance for Global Water Adaptation (AGWA) and Director of Freshwater and Climate We thank Heidi Congdon for help in producing this chapter and Change for Conservation International, USA. the photographers who made their images available. Graeme Worboys and Ian Pulsford were most patient managing editors. DIRK ROUX is a freshwater conservation scientist at South African Lori Simmons (US NPS) and Clive Hilliker (ANU) did a wonderful job National Parks and at the Sustainability Research Unit, Nelson drafting and harmonising the figures. We also thank the anonymous Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa. reviewers and publishing staff who have enhanced this text, and our respective supporting agencies. HARRY BIGGS is with South African National Parks. ESTHER BLOM is Head of the Freshwater Programme for the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Netherlands. Citation Pittock, J., Finlayson, M., Arthington, A. H., Roux, D., Matthews, REBECCA FLITCROFT is a Research Fish Biologist with the US J. H., Biggs, H., Harrison, I., Blom, E., Flitcroft, R., Froend, Forest Service at the Pacific Northwest Research Station, Oregon, R., Hermoso, V., Junk, W., Kumar, R., Linke, S., Nel, J., Nunes da USA. Cunha, C., Pattnaik, A., Pollard, S., Rast, W., Thieme, M., Turak, RAY FROEND is a Professor in Environmental Management and E., Turpie, J., van Niekerk, L., Willems, D. and Viers, J. (2015) Director of the Centre for Ecosystem Management at Edith Cowan ‘Managing freshwater, river, wetland and estuarine protected areas’, University, Australia. in G. L. Worboys, M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary and I. Pulsford (eds) Protected Area Governance and Management, pp. 569–608, is Senior Manager in the Center for Environment IAN HARRISON ANU Press, Canberra. and Peace, Conservation International, USA.

VIRGILIO HERMOSO is a Research Fellow in the Australian TITLE PAGE PHOTO Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Australia. Ramsar and World Heritage-inscribed wetlands, Kakadu WOLFGANG JUNK is affiliated with the Working Group of Tropical National Park, Australia Ecology at Max Planck-Institute for Limnology in Germany and the Source: Graeme L. Worboys National Institute of Science and Technology in Wetlands (INCT- INAU) at the Federal University of Mato Grosso, Brazil.

RITESH KUMAR is the Conservation Program Manager of Wetlands International South Asia, India.

SIMON LINKE is a Senior Research Fellow in the Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Australia.

JEANNE NEL is a Principal Researcher at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in South Africa.

CATIA NUNES DA CUNHA is a Professor in the Instituto de Biociências at the Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso in Cuiabá, Brazil.

AJIT PATTNAIK is the Chief Executive of Chilika Development Authority, India.

SHARON POLLARD is Director of the Association for Water and Rural Development, South Africa.

WALTER RAST is Director of International Watershed Studies, Meadows Center for Water and the Environment, at Texas State University, USA.

MICHELE THIEME is a Senior Freshwater Conservation Scientist with WWF, USA.

EREN TURAK is Senior Team Leader and Research Scientist at the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Australia. 19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas

Introduction Freshwater ecosystems Better practices for managing inland aquatic ecosystems in protected areas—including rivers, other brackish and Defining freshwater ecosystems freshwater ecosystems, and coastal estuaries—are the The terms (non-marine) wetlands and freshwater focus of this chapter. Most natural protected areas are ecosystems are used interchangeably in this chapter. designated as ‘terrestrial’ or ‘marine’, and the obvious In the parlance of the Convention on Biological question for most managers is ‘why should I worry about Diversity (CBD 2010), freshwater ecosystems are called the (usually) small portion of my protected area that ‘inland waters’. Wetlands are places where water is the involves freshwater habitat’. primary factor controlling plant and animal life and the On the contrary, in this chapter, we argue that freshwater wider environment, where the water table is at or near and estuarine habitats are significant for conserving the land surface, or where water covers the land. The biodiversity in most land-based protected areas and Ramsar Convention on Wetlands defines wetlands as that managers need to apply the freshwater-specific ‘areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural conservation tools outlined here to do a good job. or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is Freshwater ecosystems have the greatest species diversity static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas per unit area, a larger portion of freshwater and estuarine of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not species are threatened, and the ecosystem services of exceed six metres’ (Ramsar 2009a:Art. 1, Clause 1). these biomes are used unsustainably to a greater extent Consequently, saline wetlands are included in this than any other biomes (MEA 2005; Dudgeon et al. chapter. Marine wetlands are considered in Chapter 20. 2006). Many terrestrial species depend on freshwater Riverine and ‘marshy’ wetlands along rivers are the focus ecosystems. Rather than a marginal part of management, of the section on environmental flows and wetland water freshwater conservation is central to sustaining protected regimes. Peatlands, groundwater-dependent ecosystems, areas and their biodiversity. lakes and estuarine wetlands are discussed in separate We start by defining inland aquatic ecosystems. We then sections. Next we describe the diversity and distribution examine the principles and processes that are essential to of freshwater ecosystems in greater detail. conservation of freshwater ecosystems and aquatic species. Briefly, we introduce the threats to freshwater ecosystems and the flow-on implications for protected area design. Diversity and distribution of A number of the counterintuitive implications for and freshwater ecosystems conflicts between terrestrial versus freshwater protected There is a tremendous diversity of freshwater ecosystems area design and management are then detailed. Case and many approaches for classifying them at different studies are used to illustrate principles and practices scales (Finlayson and van der Valk 1995; Higgins et al. applied around the world. 2005). At the global scale, freshwater ecosystems have The next section of the chapter considers the specific been grouped into 426 freshwater ecoregions that largely management needs of rivers and swamps, lakes, peatlands, follow watershed divides and capture the distributions of groundwater-dependent ecosystems and estuaries. freshwater fish and ecological and evolutionary patterns Methods and options for providing environmental (Abell et al. 2008). Lehner and Döll (2004) used remote flows to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services sensing to map wetland occurrence to present a global are summarised. We then turn to management of fresh map of wetland distribution (Figure 19.1). At a more waters in protected areas in the broader landscape, granular level, many governments have mapped wetland showing how natural resource governance processes can systems within their borders—for example, the State of be harnessed to better manage freshwater biodiversity in Queensland in Australia (Government of Queensland protected areas. The final section is vital for all protected 2014). Despite such efforts, data for wetland areas with freshwater components, addressing how we distribution and extent vary considerably (Table 19.1) can adapt to climate change. due to differences in definitions and approaches used for mapping (Finlayson et al. 1999).

571 Protected Area Governance and Management

Figure 19.1 Global distribution of wetlands Source: Modified from Lehner and Döll (2004)

Table 19.1 Estimates of inland wetland area (million hectares)

Region Finlayson et al. (1999) Lehner and Döll (2004) Africa 121–4 136 Asia 204 286 Europe 258 26 Neotropics 415 159 North America 242 287 Oceania 36 28 Total 12.76–21.29 917

Note: The large differences in the figures for wetland area in Europe and the Neotropics have not been analysed in the literature.

The estimated percentage of wetlands included in The effect of reduced flows on terrestrial habitats and protected areas is relatively high compared with many communities has been demonstrated very clearly in terrestrial ecosystems—around 30 per cent in Europe many parts of the world. For example, the excessive and North and South America (Chape et al. 2008)—but diversion of inflowing rivers for irrigated agriculture these areas have not been reserved systematically, and are from the 1960s shrank the Aral Sea to 10 per cent of its rarely accorded priority in management. former area by 2007, degrading the surrounding land with saline, polluted dust (Micklin and Aladin 2008). The importance of land cover, particularly forest cover, Freshwater ecological principles for hydrological flows is complex (Bruijnzeel 2004). Freshwater ecosystems are expressions of the geophysical Effects from different upstream catchments are and ecological histories of the landscape through which compounded as water moves downstream. This may water flows. The water present in any freshwater ecosystem be a challenge where multiple negative effects are forms part of the global water cycle—the movement compounded, or may provide solutions where the of water throughout the Earth and its atmospheric negative effects from one catchment are reduced by system (Shiklomanov 1993). Freshwater and terrestrial water flowing in from a non-impacted catchment (for ecosystems are intimately linked by the water flowing example, the Olifants and Blyde rivers in South Africa; through them. Consequently, every land-use decision is Kotze 2013). Freshwater flows carry carbon, nitrogen, effectively a water-use decision (Bossio et al. 2010). oxygen and other substances that are essential for the

572 19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas

A black bear (Ursus americanus) in a river in Canada Source: Rod Mast functioning of downstream ecosystems, supporting invasion of introduced and alien species that can tolerate a rich variety of life. These flows also carry sediments, the modified flow conditions (Bunn and Arthington washed in from upstream terrestrial habitats and eroding 2002). An important application of the concept of the banks. The connectivity that exists across rivers, their natural flow regime is in the definition of ‘environmental tributaries and associated wetlands supports the diversity flows’, which is detailed in a later section. of species present, providing access to habitats for feeding and reproduction, and promoting population growth, community diversity and productivity (Bunn and Managing threats to freshwater Arthington 2002; Campbell-Grant et al. 2007). systems In some cases, marine linkages are vital, such as when Freshwater and estuarine ecosystems are among the most anadromous fish return to their natal river to spawn and, threatened in the world, with the Millennium Ecosystem upon dying there, deposit many ocean-derived substances Assessment (MEA 2005) describing freshwater within freshwater systems. In the Pacific north-west of ecosystems as being overused, under-represented in North America, for instance, there are some forests where protected areas and having the highest portion of species much of the soil nitrogen is derived from marine sources threatened with extinction. People are inextricably linked via salmon migration (Helfield and Naiman 2006) to freshwater ecosystems, and both people and nature (see photo above). benefit by managing risks to the health of these habitats (Dudgeon et al. 2006; Vörösmarty et al. 2010). Primary Freshwater ecosystems are dependent on the quantity, direct drivers of degradation and loss of riverine and timing and quality of water flowing through them. Many other wetlands include infrastructure development, land changes in the natural flow regime can compromise conversion, water withdrawal, pollution, overharvesting the survival of species that are adapted to the historical and overexploitation of freshwater species, the regime (Laizé et al. 2014). Many wetland birds and introduction of invasive alien species, and global climate terrestrial species undergo widespread migrations based change (MEA 2005; Dudgeon et al. 2006). The World on seasonal changes in the availability of water, habitat Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) outlines how and food in rivers and wetlands. Disturbance of the flow freshwater biodiversity is particularly threatened because regime in freshwater ecosystems can also promote the its conservation depends on maintaining ground and

573 Protected Area Governance and Management surface water flows, managing activities within the Recreational use of water bodies catchment and coordinating the activities of multiple Freshwater ecosystems are a major focus of visitor management authorities (Dudley 2013). activities in most protected areas, requiring trade- Later sections provide advice on managing threats at offs between visitor use and biodiversity conservation the landscape scale, whereas management of threats to (Hadwen et al. 2012) (see also Chapter 23). Riparian freshwater ecosystems within protected areas is briefly areas often provide a biodiverse corridor of moisture- summarised here (see also Chapters 16 and 17). loving vegetation running through drier regions, creating moist microclimates and habitat for many Water infrastructure and diversions species. Fragmentation and trampling of this vegetation can significantly impact on the freshwater ecosystem. Water diversions and infrastructure alter flows that are Sediment-laden run-off from roads and tracks into water vital to maintaining freshwater biodiversity. Wherever bodies can seriously harm aquatic biota, by reducing possible, redundant water storages in protected areas filter feeding and prey visibility and by smothering rocky should be decommissioned. There are a number of substrates used for fish spawning and insect development. manuals available for removing dams (Bowman et al. The smallest ‘jump’ up to or over a causeway or culvert 2002; Lindloff 2000). For example, in the United States, across a water body may be a barrier to migration of two large dams are being removed on the Elwha River aquatic species like fish and invertebrates. to enable migratory salmon to recolonise habitat within Olympic National Park in Washington State (Howard Key management responses should include: zoning 2012) (see Chapter 12). land access, siting visitor facilities away from water bodies, fencing visitors out of riparian areas, creating Where infrastructure is retained, there are four key boardwalks and access points to water, and regulating measures that will reduce but not fully compensate for use of motorised vehicles (Mosisch and Arthington the impact on freshwater ecosystems (Davies 2010; 1998; Chatterjee et al. 2008). Roads and tracks should Pittock and Hartmann 2011): restoration of fish passage be located to drain run-off away from water bodies and around dams; provision for release of environmental onto land. Crossings should be built as bridges or broad flows (see section below); building dam outlet structures culverts sunk into the stream bed so as to maintain that eliminate thermal pollution; and conservation of the passage for aquatic fauna. Regulating fishing activities river corridor below the dam—for example, by restoring is essential to conserve biodiversity (Ramsar 2005). riparian vegetation. Screening water diversion intakes to Avoiding contaminated discharge and treating sewage prevent loss of fish and other aquatic wildlife may also are particularly important in preventing pollution of help (Baumgartner et al. 2009). water bodies. Toilet facilities should be sited well away from water bodies. Invasive species Alien animal and plant species, once introduced into water Pollution spills bodies, are particularly difficult to eliminate or control. Protected area management requires use of chemicals To prevent introductions and control those that do occur: such as fuels and herbicides that would have negative • identify vectors for introduction of species (for impacts if discharged into water bodies. Spills should be example, aquaculture farms, ornamental gardens) prevented wherever possible through good workplace and seek voluntary or regulatory measures to prevent health and safety practices, including siting chemicals pest releases away from water bodies, and securing and labelling stored chemicals. Potential pollutants should be stored • monitor freshwater ecosystems to identify new and used on hard, internally draining surfaces that can problem species, drawing on information on pest contain accidental spills. Materials for soaking up any species in your country or region spills such as hay, sawdust or cat litter should be available • eliminate newly observed populations of threat on site, plus tools and bags for removing them for species (incursion management) treatment. Spills into waterways require urgent advice • prevent the spread of pest species (this may be a case to downstream authorities to close water diversions and where a barrier dam in a stream is used to protect prevent use of polluted water by people, wildlife and upstream populations of indigenous species from livestock wherever possible (see also Chapter 26). exotic species spreading from downstream) • institute control measures where this is feasible (Chatterjee et al. 2008).

574 19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas

Flood, drought and fire a large proportion of freshwater species (for example, erosion control). Many significant threats to populations Floods, droughts and fire are natural processes in many of freshwater species are not, however, reflected in the ecosystems and plants and animals can normally tolerate condition of surface water catchments—for example, or recover from them. In particular, many freshwater downstream artificial barriers. Hence, there will often species and ecosystems are adapted to variability in water be a need for carefully planned actions to protect volumes and timing of flows and require variability to the populations of these species. This is particularly thrive, such that regulated water bodies should not be important where climate change is likely to lead to rapid managed with unnatural, permanent or stable flows expansion of invasive freshwater species, resulting in (Postel and Richter 2003). Some freshwater ecosystems a decline in populations of native species (Rahel et al. are adapted to fire, such as floodplain forests in southern 2008). Australia, whereas others are destroyed by and should be protected from fire—for example, peat swamp One of the first steps in developing action plans for forests in Borneo. Riparian forests are often naturally managing freshwater species in protected areas is to fire resistant even among other, flammable vegetation access relevant data, which are often scattered among types. The traditional practices of local and indigenous different custodians (for example, fisheries management peoples of cool patch burns around these ecosystems agencies and university researchers). The Global may conserve them from hot wildfires. Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF 2014) and BioFresh data portal (BioFresh 2013) are two important While this brief section on threats cannot detail all sources of freshwater species data. Species observations mitigation measures, a particularly concise source of made by volunteers (citizen scientists) and uploaded to information for managing wetlands in protected areas to databases using mobile phone apps, such as the Global avoid or mitigate these threats is Wetland Management Freshwater Fish BioBlitz (FFSG 2013), are increasingly Planning: A guide for site managers (Chatterjee et al. important. Also there are a large number of national, 2008). The resolutions and guidelines of the Ramsar regional and continental assessments—for example, for Convention and the Ramsar Handbooks for the Wise Africa (Darwall et al. 2011). Use of Wetlands (Ramsar 2011) provide excellent advice on good international practices for almost any wetland Prioritisation is then needed of species and interventions. management challenge. An adaptive management Important factors to consider in this process include: approach is important to facilitate the engagement International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and empowerment of stakeholders and rights-holders, Red List status (IUCN 2003); local threatened species inclusive and iterative learning, and purposeful action legislation; community interest; species used in setting amid inherent complexities (Kingsford et al. 2011). regional freshwater conservation targets (for example, We now turn to the conservation of freshwater species Khoury et al. 2011); and species that are essential as and protected area design options that involve mitigating sources of food or habitat for threatened species. Where threats and maximising biodiversity protection. occurrence data for a species of interest are limited, species distribution models can be used (Pearson 2007). These models can also assess the distribution of invasive Conserving freshwater species species. These outputs can also be used in developing Freshwater species include ‘real aquatic species’ which regional freshwater conservation plans (for example, accomplish all or part of their life cycle in or on water Esselman and Allan 2011). Good protected area design and ‘water-dependent’ (paraquatic) species which show is vital to conserving threatened species and biodiversity. close and specific dependence on aquatic habitats (for example, for food or habitat). The first global freshwater animal diversity assessment (Balian et al. 2008) found Freshwater protected area design that there were 126 000 freshwater animal species, Freshwater conservation planning has traditionally representing approximately 9.5 per cent of all recognised lagged behind the systematic and quantitative planning species. for terrestrial and marine realms, mainly due to the spatial and temporal complexities characteristic of Efficient investment of resources in protecting freshwater freshwater systems. Fortunately, conservation studies in species within protected areas requires striking the right recent years have provided the methods to plan better for balance between actions targeted at the level of ecosystems freshwater systems (Collier 2011). and landscapes and those that target individual species. Actions at the landscape scale that address major threats to freshwater ecosystems can be effective in protecting

575 Protected Area Governance and Management

To be effective, protected areas must consider some • Flow regimes: Water is critical for maintaining particularities of freshwater ecosystems. Spatial– freshwater biodiversity, including the volume, timing temporal connectivity plays a key role in maintaining and quality of surface water flows as well as surface important ecological processes (Ward 1989), such as water–groundwater dynamics. dispersal, gene flow or transport of energy and matter • Longitudinal and lateral connectivity: Protecting essential for the persistence of populations and species. water flows along rivers and from channels onto There are examples of how to effectively incorporate floodplains is essential. This involves preventing or connectivity in all its dimensions—longitudinal removing artificial physical and chemical barriers, (Hermoso et al. 2011), lateral (Hermoso et al. 2012a), and providing bypass facilities for aquatic wildlife. vertical (Nel et al. 2011) and temporal (Hermoso et • Groundwater–surface water interactions: Protection al. 2012b)—into systematic conservation planning of groundwater flows is needed since most surface frameworks, which help design protected areas that are waters depend to some extent or at some times on ecologically functional from a freshwater point of view. aquifers (the water table). There also have been advances in integrating threats and degradation processes into conservation planning, • Relationship to the broader landscape: Wetland to avoid the allocation of conservation efforts in areas systems in a protected area cannot usually be ‘fenced where the existence of threats or their propagation could off’ from impacts arising in the wider terrestrial compromise the persistence of biodiversity (for example, landscape, and will normally require integrated Moilanen et al. 2011; Linke et al. 2012). threat management at the catchment scale. • Multiple management authorities: Different Planning for persistence of biodiversity through government agencies usually have overlapping maintenance of ecological resilience requires consideration and often conflicting responsibilities concerning of the political and socioeconomic factors that influence freshwater management. Conservation is complicated aquatic systems. Social (Knight et al. 2011) and political by the need to coordinate management activities (Faleiro and Loyola 2013) aspects of conservation play among government agencies with diverse mandates. an important role in the success or failure of a plan. This phenomenon is widely documented and is addressed in Upcoming sections suggest ways to manage these cross-governmental initiatives at national (Pittock and differences. Unique types of freshwater protected areas Finlayson 2011) and international scales (Haefner 2013) are now outlined as well as conflicts between terrestrial in river science. and freshwater conservation, before considering conservation of specific types of wetland ecosystem. The final key to effective conservation for fresh waters is embedding protection schemes in a wider Freshwater protected area types environmental context—ideally at the whole catchment scale. This issue was identified as a critical point for the The unique characteristics of freshwater ecosystems mean success of freshwater conservation by Abell et al. (2007), that there is sometimes confusion as to what constitutes a who called for multiple tiers in freshwater protection— freshwater protected area and insufficient recognition of from strict protected areas to catchment management some unique types of protected areas. The IUCN states zones. The patchy reservation of the Pantanal wetlands that a ‘protected area is a clearly defined geographical in South America (Case Study 19.1) highlights these space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through issues. legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values’ (Dudley 2013:8).

Unique considerations Areas managed for conservation of freshwater biodiversity are protected areas even if they occur on a What is different from terrestrial variety of land tenures or are managed without specific systems? legislation or by non-governmental managers, as long An obvious question for land-based protected area as these are ‘effective’. In this context, sites designated managers is ‘why do I need to do anything different to under the Ramsar Convention are protected areas even conserve freshwater biodiversity’. The differences are if they are not recognised in national law (see the section well detailed in the Guidelines for Applying Protected below on Ramsar). Similarly, the ‘Heritage Rivers’ of Area Management Categories (Dudley 2013), and can be Canada are protected areas. Freshwater areas conserved summarised as follows. by the traditional laws of indigenous peoples and the wetland portions of the non-legislated Indigenous

576 Case Study 19.1 Pantanal, South America 19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas

The Pantanal is a large internal delta and, at 160 000 square kilometres, is one of the largest wetlands in the world. It is divided between Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay (Figure 19.2). An annual flood pulse has led to a dynamic mosaic of permanent terrestrial through to permanent aquatic habitats (Nunes da Cunha and Junk 2011). The Pantanal supports a traditional pastoral industry and can be considered a managed cultural landscape with high aesthetic value and large species and habitat diversity (Junk et al. 2006). Only 5 per cent of the Brazilian Pantanal is fully protected in Ramsar sites and other kinds of protected areas. Hydro-electric power plants have begun to modify the flood pulses. Occupation of the catchment by large agro- industries has led to increased soil erosion and sediment loads. Agricultural developments are encroaching on the Pantanal and have led to renewed consideration of the ‘hidrovia’ canalisation of the Paraguay River. The Pantanal case study highlights the need to: better define the borders of the wetland and protect key habitats; collaborate with local communities for wetland-friendly livelihoods; and maintain near-natural flood pulses by controlling water releases from dams (Junk and Nunes da Cunha 2012). Figure 19.2 Pantanal wetlands, South America Source: US National Park Service

Protected Areas (IPAs) in Australia are protected protected forest areas agreed to as an offset for degrading areas. Reserves under fisheries legislation are another internationally significant river ecosystems (Porter and example. The Cosumnes River Preserve in the United Shivakumar 2010). States (Case Study 19.2) is an example of a freshwater protected area involving coordinated management by In many places, hydro-electric power generators or water different organisations across tenures. The Guidelines for consumers are paying fees for the conservation of the Applying Protected Area Management Categories should be watersheds of dams, including as protected areas (Postel consulted to assist managers assign freshwater areas to and Thompson 2005). While payment for watershed categories for protected area inventories (Dudley 2013). services may benefit terrestrial conservation and the conservation of headwater streams, the significant environmental damage caused by the dams that are Conflicts between terrestrial and the source of the revenue is rarely recognised. Richness freshwater conservation and abundance of aquatic species are often lower in Regrettably, many terrestrial protected areas are created upland protected areas (Chessman 2013). In freshwater as a trade-off for damaging freshwater ecosystems, and ecosystems, the large mid-slope and lowland rivers are many erstwhile positive conservation measures have usually the ones that have the greatest aquatic species perverse impacts on aquatic biota and ecosystems. diversity and provide vital corridors for migratory Protected area establishment is often linked to hydro- animals. Usually these are the parts of rivers targeted electric or water-supply dam development. For example, for water infrastructure development (Sheldon 1988; the establishment of the Kosciuszko National Park Tockner et al. 2008). in Australia was intended to reduce erosion in the catchments of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Under these circumstances, managers have an obligation to Scheme constructed within the park from 1949 to ensure that any resources provided by water infrastructure 1974. It was only in 2002 that agreement was reached to developers contribute to conservation of freshwater restore minimal environmental flows to these degraded biodiversity downstream, as well as upstream of dams. rivers (Miller 2005). More recently, protected areas have There are four key interventions—namely: restoration been established in mountain catchments in developing of fish passage around dams; provision for release of countries as a trade-off for the impacts of hydro-electric environmental flows; building dam outlet structures development. The Nam Theun II hydro-power project that can eliminate downstream thermal pollution; and in Laos is an example of improved management of the conservation of the river corridor below the dam, for example, by restoring riparian vegetation (Davies 2010; Pittock and Hartmann 2011). These measures will

577 ProtectedCase AreaStudy Governance 19.2 and Cosumnes Management River Preserve, USA

Crop out Reference ID: Chapter19- gure1

Crop out Reference ID: Chapter19- gure2

‘Pre-wetting’ the river bed aids conservation of fish in the Cosumnes River Preserve, USA Source: Carson Jeffres

Water resources in California’s Central Valley have been directed to drinking water and irrigated agriculture. Agricultural development has seen wetlands reduced to less than 6 per cent of the original 1.8 million hectares (Whipple 2012). The Cosumnes River Preserve conserves key remnants on 20 000 hectares of managed floodplain and river ecosystems distributed over 150 square kilometres, and is managed via a formal partnership (Figure 19.3; Kleinschmidt Associates 2008). The Nature Conservancy and federal Bureau of Land Management are the primary landowners, with other contributions from six federal, State and local government agencies, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) and private lands in conservation easements. Memoranda between these entities encourage both nature protection and sustainable use of some lands, particularly because some practices, such as forage and rice production, create seasonal habitat for focal bird species (Kleinschmidt Associates 2008). This form of management is akin to IUCN Category VI. This example illustrates how a freshwater protected area can comprise many different land tenures, owners and legal agreements. The primary management challenge is countering the abstraction of groundwater to meet municipal and agricultural demands, as the Cosumnes River and the adjacent mosaic of wetlands (Type II groundwater-dependent ecosystems; see sections below) are now disconnected from the water Figure 19.3 Cosumnes River Preserve, United table and seasonally dry. ‘Pre-wetting’ the river channel with States of America managed water prior to winter precipitation could maximise Source: Modified from Josh Viers the biodiversity benefits from natural inflows (Fleckenstein et al. 2004). Other forms of adaptive management include the breaching of dykes and levees to reconnect former farmland to floodwaters and promote rearing of juvenile fishes like Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (Jeffres et al. 2008).

578 19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas reduce but never fully compensate for the impact of water infrastructure on freshwater ecosystems. Hence, managers should resist the construction of water infrastructure impacting on protected areas. In an era of growing water scarcity, more proposals to exploit water resources within nature reserves are likely and should be resisted, but if imposed, the mitigation measures described above should be mandatory.

Many protected area managers have installed dams, either to supply staff and visitors or to enhance wildlife viewing. Establishing watering points for wildlife is a misguided notion that should only be considered in exceptional circumstances, such as part of a targeted threatened species recovery plan. Water should be accessed from groundwater, off-river storage tanks or small dams to reduce the ecological impacts of water supply infrastructure. Even small dams across streams can block the passage of aquatic wildlife. There are negative impacts on terrestrial and riparian ecosystems from concentrating grazing by herbivores. Generally, Conserve lowland rivers as well as headwaters: dams for wildlife and other redundant water storages Richtersveld National Park, South Africa in protected areas should be decommissioned, as is Source: Conservation International/Haroldo Castro occurring in Kruger National Park (Brits et al. 2002). bodies, point-source pollution discharges, water New kinds of perverse impacts are emerging, often extraction, introduction of alien species, extraction of associated with climate change mitigation measures aquatic plants and animals, mining riverbanks and beds, that consume a lot of water (Pittock et al. 2013). and clearing of riparian forests. In one respect, having a One example is planting trees to sequester carbon—an river as a border is just one manifestation of not having approach supported by many environmental managers as an entire watershed inside a protected area; however, a way of funding biodiversity restoration. Planting forests, where a sinuous river forms the boundary, the border however, inevitably increases evapotranspiration and is usually longer, exposing freshwater ecosystems to reduces inflows into freshwater ecosystems (Jackson et al. dispersed conservation threats and making management 2005; van Dijk and Keenan 2007). One projection for the responses more challenging. overallocated Macquarie River in Australia suggested that reafforesting 10 per cent of the upper catchment would How, then, should protected area managers enhance reduce river flows into the Macquarie Marshes Nature conservation in circumstances where the river is the Reserve and Ramsar site by 17 per cent (Herron et al. boundary? Key among the approaches is engaging 2002). There are ways of reconciling these conflicts—for stakeholders and rights-holders outside the protected example, by requiring acquisition of water entitlements area in cooperative management arrangements. In the for the environment to offset increased evapotranspiration section below on landscape management, a number of by trees, or restoring vegetation in areas that contribute these opportunities are outlined. Managers of Kruger less water to rivers (Pittock et al. 2013). There may be National Park in South Africa have applied these acceptable trade-offs—for example, restoring riparian approaches (Case Study 19.3). forests has many benefits for freshwater ecosystem conservation that may offset the consumption of water. Managing specific freshwater Dodgy borders: Managing divided freshwater systems ecosystems A great many of the world’s land-based protected areas In this section, we consider the specific management have boundaries defined in part by rivers. Obviously, requirements of particular freshwater ecosystems before the threats to freshwater biodiversity are greater where reviewing landscape-scale management options. part of the water basin is outside the boundaries of a protected area. Among the likely threats are: diffuse pollutants and eroded sediments washing into water

579 Protected Area Governance and Management

Dam removal restores river connectivity and fish passage, Veazie Dam, Penobscot River, USA Source: Joshua Royte, The Nature Conservancy

The key challenge for managers whose protected areas Environmental flows and wetland receive water from unreserved upstream catchments is to water regimes engage water managers and users to agree on a process for assessing and deciding on environmental flows. Environmental flows More than 250 practical methods, models and frameworks To maintain freshwater biodiversity and ecological are available to link water volumes and patterns of services inside protected areas, conservation reserve flow to biodiversity and ecological processes (Dyson managers must try to ensure that the natural water et al. 2003; Tharme 2003). While environmental flow regimes of lakes, wetlands and rivers are protected assessment may seem complex, even daunting, a simple from overuse, diversion and impoundment. Freshwater guide to the technical options available for protected area management has been integrated into the broader scope managers to assess what is required is given in Table 19.2. of ecological sustainability through the provision of These methods focus largely on rivers; however, they are environmental flows, which are defined as ‘the quantity, applicable in concept and practice to water bodies that timing and quality of water flows required to sustain rarely flow but nevertheless experience natural spatial freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the human and seasonal patterns of water-level fluctuation, wetting livelihoods and wellbeing that depend upon these and drying, and links to groundwater. Estuaries also ecosystems’ (Brisbane Declaration 2007). need to receive freshwater inflows (see section below). Methods and applications for all aquatic ecosystem types There is now wide recognition that a dynamic, variable can be found in Arthington (2012). water regime is required to maintain species phenology (seasonal timing of events in the life cycle) and the native biodiversity and ecological processes characteristic Setting limits to hydrologic alteration of every river and wetland ecosystem. The natural flow Despite tremendous advances in methods, setting a limit regime and diverse ecohydrological principles (for on hydrologic alteration remains the most challenging example, Bunn and Arthington 2002) flesh out the aspect of environmental flow science and sustainable influence of flow volume, seasonal timing and variability water management. Simple methods set this limit on aquatic biodiversity, population recruitment as a percentage of the natural flow, or define the river and ecosystem productivity. These ecohydrological discharge that maintains fish habitat and connectivity principles inform assessment of the environmental flow through the channel network. In the holistic requirements of aquatic plants and animals. ‘downstream response to imposed flow transformations’ (DRIFT) and ‘ecological limits of hydrologic alteration’ (ELOHA) frameworks (Table 19.2), and several

580 Case Study 19.3 Kruger National Park rivers,19. South Managing Freshwater,Africa River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas

Five major rivers that traverse the breadth of Kruger National a research-based NGO, and the Inkomati Catchment Park (KNP) (IUCN Category II) are crucial to conserving its Management Agency (Pollard and du Toit 2011). biodiversity (Figure 19.4). Most of the rivers originate in or Development pressure is resulting in a decline in the condition flow through highly developed, urbanised, industrialised, of all but one of the KNP rivers, including non-compliance mining or agricultural areas, rendering the park particularly with statutorily defined environmental flows for water quality vulnerable to upstream impacts. South African National and quantity. The advocacy by networks of competent Parks (SANParks) initiated the multi-institutional KNP Rivers actors, however, together with ongoing monitoring and Research Programme (see Biggs and Rogers 2003) in adaptive responses, means the rivers are likely in a better response to the deteriorating quantity and quality of many shape than they would otherwise have been (Pollard and du of these rivers. SANParks sees the KNP as embedded Toit 2011). Moreover, the increasing mobilisation of opinion, in a wider socioecological system (the catchment) that effort and concerted action by catchment management needs to be managed adaptively and collaboratively with agencies offers hope. SANParks’ work highlights how park the surrounding communities. This approach has been managers have an important watchdog role to play in the strengthened through a number of initiatives, especially the context of multi-scale catchment and water governance work of the Association for Water and Rural Development, (Pollard and du Toit 2011).

Figure 19.4 Kruger National Park, South Africa Source: © Clive Hilliker, The Australian National University

restoration protocols (for example, Richter et al. 2006), that does not cross the threshold of hydrologic alteration scientists, stakeholders, rights-holders and managers give for overbank flows. For a linear response where there consideration to a suite of flow alteration–ecological is no clear threshold demarcating low from high risk, response relationships for each system under study. a consensus stakeholder process will be needed to An important concept is the idea of a threshold beyond determine ‘acceptable risk’ to a valued ecological asset, which unacceptable ecological changes are likely to occur. such as an estuarine fishery dependent on freshwater Where there are clear threshold responses (for example, inflows (Loneragan and Bunn 1999). It is important to overbank flows needed to support riparian vegetation differentiate the scientific assessment of ecological limits or provide fish access to backwater and floodplain to hydrologic alteration from the social process of finally habitats), a ‘low-risk’ environmental flow would be one deciding on the recommended flow (Arthington 2012).

581 Protected Area Governance and Management

Table 19.2 Environmental flow methods: comparison of the four main types of methods used worldwide to estimate environmental flows = environmental water allocations (EWA)

Type River ecosystem Data Resolution of output Appropriate levels components requirements (EWA) of application and resource intensity (time, cost and technical capacity) Hydrological Whole ecosystem, non- Low Low Reconnaissance level specific, or ecosystem of water resource Primarily desktop Expressed as percentage components such as fish developments, or of monthly or annual flow (Tennant 1976) Use virgin/naturalised as a tool within (median or mean), or as historical flow records habitat simulation or limits to change in vital flow holistic (ecosystem) parameters—for example, Some use historical methodologies ecological data range of variability approach (Richter et al. 1996, 2006) Used widely Hydraulic rating Instream habitat for target Low–medium Low–medium Water resource biota developments where little Desktop, limited field Hydraulic variables (for negotiation is involved, example, wetted perimeter) Historical flow records or as a tool within habitat used as surrogate for habitat simulation or ecosystem flow needs of target species Discharge linked to methodologies hydraulic variables— or assemblages typically single river Used widely cross-section Habitat simulation Primarily in-stream habitat Medium–high Medium–high Water resource for target biota developments, often Desktop and field Output in form of weighted large scale, involving Some consider usable area of habitat Historical flow records. rivers of high strategic channel form, sediment for target species (fish, Many hydraulic importance, often with transport, water quality, invertebrates, plants). Can variables are modelled complex, negotiated riparian vegetation, involve time-series of habitat at range of discharge at trade-offs among users, wildlife, recreation and availability multiple stream cross- or as method within aesthetics—for example, sections holistic (ecosystem) the Physical Habitat approaches Simulation computer Physical habitat modelling system suitability or preference Primarily used in (PHABSIM) developed by data needed for target developed countries the US Fish and Wildlife species Service (Bovee 1982) Holistic (ecosystem) Whole ecosystem, all Medium–high Medium–high Water resource frameworks or several ecological developments, Desktop and field Advanced fish methods components typically large scale, use data on movement Use virgin/naturalised involving rivers of high Most consider in-stream and migration, spawning, historical flow records conservation and/or and riparian components, larval/juvenile requirements, or rainfall records strategic importance, some also consider: water-quality tolerances; compared with current and/or with complex user groundwater, wetlands, exotic species included gauge records trade-offs floodplains, estuary and (for example, downstream coastal waters Many hydraulic response to imposed flow Simpler approaches (for variables—multiple transformations (DRIFT); example, expert panels) May assess social and cross-sections Arthington et al. 2003) often used where flow economic dependence ecology knowledge on species/ecosystem Ecological limits of hydrologic Biological data on flow is limited, or there are (for example, downstream alteration (ELOHA) quantifies and habitat-related limited trade-offs among response to imposed flow e-flow ‘rules’ for rivers of requirements of biota users, and/or time transformations (DRIFT); contrasting hydrological type and some/all ecological constraints King et al. 2003) components at user-defined regional scale (Poff et al. 2010) Used in developing and developed countries

Source: Adapted from Tharme (2003); for examples, see Arthington (2012)

582 19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas

Adapting to climate change Lakes The natural environmental regimes that govern aquatic Globally, there are an estimated 27 million natural lakes ecosystems, especially water regimes, have been replaced and half a million artificial lakes (reservoirs) greater than with altered regimes in many areas of the world under one hectare in area. The term ‘lakes’ is henceforth used increasing human pressure for fresh water and in to refer to both natural lakes and artificial reservoirs, response to shifting climates. The combination of climate noting that the biodiversity values of artificial lakes are change and flow regulation is now driving structurally generally much lower than those of natural ones. Lakes novel ecosystems that may require new concepts and collectively contain more than 90 per cent of the liquid a range of approaches to water management to cope fresh water on the surface of our planet, and in addition with increasingly uncertain futures (Palmer et al. 2008). to providing habitat for aquatic species, they provide Research that identifies flow regime characteristics and extensive services to humanity. Lakes and reservoirs are associated ecological responses to variability is one of the easily polluted and degraded (Illueca and Rast 1996). best options for preparedness. The study of ecological responses along contemporary gradients of flow variability Managing these water bodies for their conservation is (wet to dry tropics, coastal to arid zone regions) may a complex undertaking involving a range of scientific, provide analogues for future climatic shifts (Arthington et socioeconomic and governance elements. Lakes are al. 2006). Yet the surest way to advance understanding of hydrologically linked to upstream rivers or tributaries the ecological roles of flow, and to improve water use for flowing into them, to downstream water systems into ecosystem and human benefit, is through well-designed which they discharge, and sometimes also to subsurface monitoring of ecological outcomes over time (Arthington groundwater aquifers (Figure 19.5). Downstream et al. 2010; Davies et al. 2014). water needs can sometimes significantly dictate the management requirements of upstream lakes that supply Conservation managers can take the lead in applying water to them, an example being the Lake Biwa–Yodo environmental flow concepts and methods to the diverse River complex in Japan (Nakamura et al. 2012). protected areas they manage. Common key steps in the different environmental flow methods outlined above Lake conservation translates into managing lakes, their include: basins and their resources for sustainable ecosystem services (MEA 2005). The scientific considerations • consulting stakeholders and rights-holders to include the quantity and quality of surface and identify the different, flow-related elements of the groundwater sources, drainage basin characteristics, flora environment that are valued, such as fish migrations and fauna, soils, topography, land use and climate—all • identifying thresholds for the quality of water and of which collectively define the physical presence and volume and timing of flows needed to sustain condition of lake waters. Institutional aspects include those values—for example, the water required for the legal and institutional framework within a lake waterbirds to successfully breed in a wetland drainage basin, economic considerations, demography, cultural and social customs, stakeholder participation • considering the natural flow variability of their rivers possibilities and political realities. The last arguably and wetlands, and seeking to mimic important comprise the most important elements, in that they features as much as possible—for instance, with define the factors controlling how humans use their water releases from dams water resources (GWP 2000). • negotiating agreements with water agencies and other stakeholders and rights-holders, including Effectively managing lakes for conservation and water departments and utilities, to deliver the sustainability also requires recognition of three unique environmental flows features: 1) an integrating nature; 2) long water retention • monitoring the impact, and evaluating and adjusting time; and 3) complex response dynamics (ILEC 2005). the environmental flows to achieve the desired Because of their location at the hub of a drainage basin, environmental and social objectives. lakes are the flow regime integrators within the entire lake–river basin complex. The integrating nature of a Environmental flows need to be applied to conserve lake refers to its function essentially as a ‘mixing pot’ lakes and estuaries, as described in the next subsections. for everything entering it from its surrounding drainage basin, and sometimes even from beyond its basin via the long-range transportation of airborne pollutants. The long water retention time refers to the average time water

583 Protected Area Governance and Management

The underlying cause of nearly all lake and other aquatic ecosystem degradation or overexploitation is inadequate governance. Based on examining lake management experiences around the world, the International Lake Environment Committee (ILEC 2005) has identified six major lake governance pillars requiring recognition and consideration:

1. policies, which essentially represent the ‘rules of the game’ 2. organisations, representing the entities responsible for carrying out the rules of the game 3. stakeholder participation—the meaningful Crop out Reference ID: Chapter19- gure5 involvement of all relevant stakeholders and rights- Environmental flow from the Alamo Dam holders in implementing effective management into the Bill Williams River, USA, a demonstration plans site in the Sustainable Rivers Project of the US Army Corps of Engineers and The Nature 4. technology, involving selection of hard Conservancy (constructions) versus soft (behavioural change) Source: US Army Corps of Engineers management approaches 5. knowledge and information, which can comprise both scientific studies and indigenous knowledge 6. finances, including identifying and ensuring sustainable sources of adequate financial support.

These six pillars make up the essential governance elements that collectively form the management regime for an integrated approach to managing lakes and their basins, as discussed in detail by Nakamura and Rast (2011). A practical lake management approach that considers both the scientific and the governance elements is encompassed within the concept of ‘integrated lake basin management’ (ILBM), as exemplified in the ILBM Platform Process developed by the International Lake Environment Committee (ILEC 2005; Figure 19.6). Figure 19.5 Links between water basins at different scales and of different types Peatlands Source: Nakamura and Rast (2011) Peatlands cover about 4 million square kilometres spends in a given lake. Lake problems often develop globally, although there is a degree of uncertainty about gradually, and may not become evident until they have their extent (Joosten 2009; Figure 19.7). There are several becomeCrop out serious Reference lake-wide ID: Chapter19- problems that gure6 can significantly definitions of peatlands, but they are generally considered impact human water uses and ecosystem integrity. This to be areas of land with a naturally accumulated layer of same buffering trait also can produce a ‘lag’ phenomenon peat, formed from carbon-rich dead and decaying plant in response to remedial programs implemented to material under waterlogged conditions, and comprising restore them. All lake problems are essentially lake-wide at least 30 per cent dry mass of dead organic material that problems, with lakes experiencing serious degradation, is greater than 30 centimetres deep. They can develop including to the aquatic communities for which they under a range of vegetation including lowland or upland provide habitats, typically not returning to the condition fens, reed beds, wet woodland, bogs and mangroves. they exhibited prior to the degradation (Nakamura and Rast 2011). Peatlands occur in many countries and could represent more than one-third of global wetlands. The largest areas are found in the northern hemisphere, especially

584 Crop out Reference ID: Chapter19- gure5

Crop out Reference ID: Chapter19- gure6

19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas in the boreal zone, with 1 375 690 square kilometres in Russia and 1 133 926 square kilometres in Canada (Joosten 2009). Estimates of peatlands from pre-1990 sources in tropical regions range from 275 424 to 570 609 square kilometres, although there has been extensive destruction in recent years (Hooijer et al. 2010).

Peatlands contain 10 per cent of the global freshwater volume and are significant for maintaining freshwater quality and the hydrological integrity of many rivers. They play an important role in maintaining permafrost and preventing desertification. In recent years, their importance as global carbon stores and sinks has come to the fore (Joosten 2009; Hooijer et al. 2010; Joosten et al. 2012). They support important biological diversity and are refugia for some of the rarest and most unusual species of wetland-dependent flora and Figure 19.6 Integrated lake basin management fauna (Joosten and Clarke 2002). Under waterlogged Source: Adapted from Nakamura and Rast (2012) conditions, they preserve a unique palaeoecological record, including valuable archaeological remains, and A change in the quantity or quality of groundwater, records of environmental contamination. They support often associated with human activity, will impact on the human needs for food, fresh water, shelter, warmth and state and condition of GDEs (Eamus and Froend 2006). employment (Joosten and Clarke 2002). Richardson et al. (2011a) recognised three types of GDEs: Human pressures on peatlands are both direct—through 1. aquifer and cave ecosystems that provide unique drainage, land conversion (for example, for oil palms and habitats for organisms (for example, stygofauna and oil sands), excavation and inundation—and indirect, as troglofauna—the animals which live underground), a result of air pollution, water contamination, water including karst aquifer systems, fractured rock and removal and infrastructure development. When they saturated sediments are destroyed, they release large amounts of carbon and are not easily restored. In response to the degradation of 2. ecosystems fully or partly dependent on the surface peatlands, the Ramsar Convention has adopted detailed expression of groundwater, including wetlands, Guidelines for Global Action on Peatlands (Ramsar 2002), lakes, seeps, springs, river base flow, and some including: establishing a global database of peatlands and estuarine and marine ecosystems detecting changes; developing and promoting awareness, 3. ecosystems dependent on the subsurface presence education and training; reviewing national networks of of groundwater (via the capillary fringe), including peatland protected areas and implementing peatland terrestrial vegetation that depends on groundwater management guidelines; and stimulating international fully or on an irregular basis. cooperation on research and technology transfer. The degree of dependence on groundwater relative to More recently, guidance has been provided to limit the other sources of water is important in differentiating these loss of carbon from peatlands and to encourage their ecosystems and their response to changes in groundwater retention and restoration as part of climate change availability (Eamus et al. 2006). Of particular significance mitigation measures (Joosten et al. 2012). This is are the spatial and temporal variabilities in water particularly important given the past loss of peatlands tables and the nature of groundwater discharge into globally and the more recent degradation of tropical flowing or still surface water bodies. According to these peatlands (Joosten et al. 2012). interactions, different physico-chemical properties and species assemblages will develop (Horwitz et al. 2008). Groundwater-dependent ecosystems Groundwater is often crucial to the maintenance of the Interest in GDEs has largely developed from a need to hydrological regime supporting ecosystems: these are understand the consequences of direct use or pollution of known as groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs). aquifers. Both the quantity and the quality of groundwater The area of these ecosystems is often poorly defined. are important as well as the spatial and temporary variability. These relationships can be disrupted by

585 Protected Area Governance and Management

Peatland cover in % 0.0 - 0.4 0.4 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 8.0 >8.0 No data

Figure 19.7 Global peatland distribution Source: Adapted from IMCG Global Peatland Database 2014 changes to the groundwater through abstraction, Management of GDEs can also be informed by pollution and reduction in rainfall recharge. Effective understanding the potential for ecosystems to adapt to management of GDEs requires integration of associated changes in groundwater availability. For example, some surface and groundwater resources and necessitates an GDEs of the Swan Coastal Plain in Western Australia understanding of the origins, pathways and storages of may have shifted to an alternative state (defined by biota water. For example, some GDEs are entirely maintained and ecological processes) in accordance with changes in by continuous groundwater discharge while others are the groundwater regime (Froend and Sommer 2010; maintained by minor but critical groundwater inflows Sommer and Froend 2014). The potential of GDEs restricted to particular seasons or interannual episodes. to adapt, however, can be limited under catastrophic (and largely irreversible) changes in the availability In general, processes that threaten GDEs are no different of groundwater, such as the widespread mortality of to those that threaten other ecosystems. Changes in groundwater-dependent (phreatophytic) vegetation by groundwater can arise from reduced rainfall recharge, groundwater abstraction in times of drought (Sommer land clearing, forestry and agriculture, urbanisation and and Froend 2011). In response, management agencies direct groundwater abstraction for water supply. The have assessed the threats to phreatophytic vegetation ecological changes brought about by these activities (Barron et al. 2013) and restricted groundwater pumping will vary between types of GDEs, depending on their near vulnerable wetland ecosystems (McFarlane et al. hydrological requirements (Hatton and Evans 1998; 2012). In order to avoid such scenarios, integrating Richardson et al. 2011a). catchment management and balancing water demands Identifying the importance of groundwater in ecosystems with conservation are required. prior to development of groundwater resources (or other activities in a catchment) will inform resource Estuaries planning and potential trade-offs. The array of current The position of estuaries at the interface of the terrestrial approaches to identifying groundwater requirements of and marine environment makes them vulnerable to GDEs is summarised by Richardson et al. (2011b), and the impacts of just about all human activities, whether ranges from measurement of groundwater transpiration land-based or marine, including the impacts of climate by individual trees to hydrological water balances and change. Estuaries are also a magnet for human activity. remote sensing at the landscape scale. In most cases Thus, managing estuaries as protected areas can be an integration of different approaches and associated particularly challenging, and its effectiveness often disciplines and knowledge is required. depends on managing external influences even more than on managing in situ activities. The successful

586 19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas management of estuarine protected areas hinges on cooperative governance between a number of community and government stakeholders.

Estuarine functioning is primarily driven by the quantity and quality of freshwater inputs and their temporal distribution, plus inputs from the marine environment (Borja et al. 2011; Whitfield et al. 2012). Mediated by freshwater inflows and tides, fresh and salt waters mix in a nutrient-rich environment that supports a diversity of aquatic species. Freshwater abstraction decreases the overall quantity of freshwater entering estuaries. On the other hand, interbasin transfer schemes, wastewater treatment works and increased run-off from ‘hardened’ catchments (for example, road networks) increase freshwater inflow (Nirupama and Simonovic 2007).

Ideally, the freshwater flow into an estuary should be The endangered red-finned blue-eye maintained in all its variability to support its overall (Scaturiginichthys vermeilipinnis) lives only in habitat structure and dynamics (van Niekerk and Turpie artesian springs, Edgbaston Reserve, Australia 2012). Base flows are generally responsible for maintaining Source: Adam Kerezsy the salinity regime, and in the case of temporarily open systems, their connectivity to the sea (mouth state). extent desired, if at all. Where this is the case, protection In contrast, floods shape the geomorphological aspects of estuaries can involve imposing artificial means such as such as the size and shape of an estuary and its characteristic flood-flow releases from dams and breaching the estuary sediment structure. These processes help to maintain artificially. These interventions are far more complex the linkages between estuaries and their surrounding than trying to maintain natural processes, and require terrestrial, freshwater and marine systems. There are many considerable investment in research and monitoring species whose life history strategies depend on movement in order to devise strategies that achieve conservation between these systems, for which the maintenance of open goals. The Chilika Lagoon (Case Study 19.4) is such an mouth conditions at the right time of year is essential. example. This includes many marine species of conservation and The main pressures that have to be managed within commercial value. Thus, estuaries should not be managed estuary systems are developments that encroach on as isolated systems (van Niekerk and Turpie 2012). estuary habitats, harvesting of resources such as fish and In addition to the quantity of water entering estuaries, mangroves, aquaculture and the eradication or control of catchment activities and infrastructure also affect the invasive alien species (Perissinotto et al. 2013). Managing quality of this water, in terms of the loads of sediments, the use of an estuary involves making trade-offs between nutrients and other pollutants (Turner et al. 2004). This the different types of values that it can generate (Turpie can result in smothering of habitats, increased turbidity et al. 2007). For example, allowing subsistence fishing and eutrophication—all of which can result in significant will impact on the provision of ecosystem services such changes in biotic communities and local extinctions. as their functioning as nursery areas to support marine While some of the pollution entering estuaries arises fisheries, and allowing excessive development and access from estuary users and adjacent settlements, these are will impact on the biodiversity of the system and its largely problems that arise from the entire catchment value as an ecotourism destination. area and require protected area managers to collaborate In order for the protection of estuaries to be successful, with relevant stakeholders. all of the following interventions at local to national The protection of an estuary therefore entails ensuring scales are necessary: that the quantity and quality of freshwater inflows are • integrated conservation planning that takes landscape maintained as close to natural as possible, in order to processes and socioeconomic trade-offs into account maintain ecological functioning and biodiversity in a (Turpie and Clark 2007) relatively natural state. In reality, estuary managers have to deal with many changes that are difficult to reverse to the

587 Protected Area Governance and Management

The restoration of Lake Chilika Ramsar site in India supports the livelihoods of fishers Source: Ritesh Kumar

• catchment management and the setting of environmental flow requirements to assure provision Managing freshwater of adequate quantity and quality of inflows to protected areas in the maintain the protected estuaries in a desired state of health (Adams 2013) landscape • management plans to control competing uses within estuaries Ramsar Convention on Wetlands • restriction of consumptive use to prioritise The Convention on Wetlands of International conservation of biodiversity and the supply of Importance arose from concerns of governments and regulating services such as nursery areas for crustaceans NGOs to conserve diminishing wetlands. It was the and fish, carbon sequestration and coastal protection first modern environmental treaty and was agreed in the • delineation of development setback lines to protect Iranian city of Ramsar in 1971. The Ramsar Convention landscape value as well as to accommodate estuary also implements the inland waters program of work on mouth migration, and water levels associated with behalf of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) changes in mouth state and sea-level rise. and complements the activities of the Convention on Migratory Species (and related treaties). While other EPA (2012) provides further information for good treaties also cover specific sites or values, the Ramsar estuarine management. Convention is discussed in depth here due to its wetlands focus.

Contracting parties (countries) to Ramsar must designate at least one wetland for inclusion on the List of Wetlands of International Importance, known as the Ramsar List (Ramsar 2008). These sites are protected areas and are selected for designation using nine criteria (Table 19.3).

588 Case Study 19.4 Restoration of Lake Chilika,19. India Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas

Chilika is an estuarine lagoon in Odisha State that seasonally of all concerned departments as well as representatives covers an area of 906 to 1165 square kilometres, and is of the fishing communities. It has programs for catchment flanked by an ephemeral floodplain of 400 square kilometres restoration, hydrobiological monitoring, sustainable (Figure 19.8). Chilika comprises shallow to very shallow development of fisheries, wildlife conservation, community marine, brackish and freshwater ecosystems with estuarine participation and development and capacity-building. characteristics and is a hotspot of biodiversity, with more In 2000 a channel was created to reconnect the lagoon to the than one million overwintering migratory birds (Kumar and sea, and restoration of the hydrological and salinity regimes Pattnaik 2012). Chilika was designated as a Ramsar site in (Ghosh et al. 2006) led to the recovery of the fisheries 1981 (IUCN Category VI). and biodiversity. An integrated management planning The livelihoods of some 200 000 fishers and 400 000 process involving key stakeholders and rights-holders was farmers depend on the lagoon but were threatened when initiated in 2008 to guide ongoing conservation of Chilika. increased sediment from a degrading catchment reduced A management planning framework was developed (Kumar the connectivity of the lagoon to the sea, causing a rapid and Pattnaik 2012), with a plan released in 2012. decline in fisheries (Mohapatra et al. 2007). The introduction of shrimp culture as well as the decline in fisheries led to resentment between traditional fishers and immigrants (Dujovny 2009). To restore the lake, in 1991 the Government of Odisha created the Chilika Development Authority, chaired by the chief minister and comprising senior representatives

Figure 19.8 Chilika Lagoon, India Source: Modified from Chilika Development Authority and Wetlands International

589 Protected Area Governance and Management

Table 19.3 Criteria for listing Wetlands of International Importance and long-term targets for the Ramsar List

Specific criterion Long-term target Contains a representative, rare or unique example of Include at least one suitable representative of each wetland a natural or near-natural wetland type found within type, according to the Ramsar classification system, which is the appropriate biogeographical region found within each biogeographical region Supports vulnerable, endangered or critically Include those wetlands that are believed to be important for endangered species or threatened ecological the survival of vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered communities species or threatened ecological communities Supports populations of plant and/or animal species Include those wetlands that are believed to be of importance for important for maintaining the biological diversity of a maintaining the biological diversity within each biogeographical particular biogeographical region region Supports plant and/or animal species at a critical Include those wetlands that are the most important for stage in their life cycles, or provides refuge during providing habitat for plant or animal species during critical adverse conditions stages of their life cycle and/or when adverse conditions prevail Regularly supports 20 000 or more waterbirds Include all wetlands that regularly support 20 000 or more waterbirds Regularly supports 1 per cent of the individuals in a Include all wetlands that regularly support 1 per cent or more population of one species or subspecies of waterbird of a biogeographical population of a waterbird species or subspecies Supports a significant proportion of indigenous fish Include those wetlands that support a significant proportion of subspecies, species or families, life history stages, indigenous fish subspecies, species or families and populations species interactions and/or populations that are representative of wetland benefits and/or values and thereby contributes to global biological diversity Important source of food for fishes, spawning Include those wetlands that provide important food sources for ground, nursery and/or migration path on which fishes, or are spawning grounds, nursery areas and/or on their fish stocks, either within the wetland or elsewhere, migration path depend Regularly supports 1 per cent of the individuals in a Include all wetlands that regularly support 1 per cent or more of population of one species or subspecies of wetland- a biogeographical population of one non-avian animal species dependent non-avian animal species or subspecies

Source: Ramsar (2008)

The convention has a wide definition of wetlands that • contribute to maintaining global biological diversity includes coastal, marine, artificial and inland ecosystems. through the designation and management of A description of each designated wetland is provided by appropriate wetland sites means of a Ramsar information sheet that includes data • foster cooperation in the selection, designation and on scientific, conservation and management parameters management of sites and a map to delimit the boundaries of the site (Ramsar • use the site network as a tool to promote national, 2009b). Countries are encouraged to establish national supranational/regional and international cooperation wetland inventories as a basis for promoting the over complementary environmental treaties designation of the largest possible number of appropriate (Ramsar 2008). wetland sites. In 2012 only 43 per cent of countries had developed an inventory. A strategic framework The list in 2014 contained 2177 sites covering provides a vision for the list to ‘develop and maintain an 2.08 million square kilometres, which represents international network of wetlands which are important 16 per cent of the estimated 12.8 million square for the conservation of global biological diversity and for kilometres of global wetlands (Finlayson et al. 1999). sustaining human life through the maintenance of their There are 795 inland freshwater wetlands on the Ramsar ecosystem components, processes and benefits/services’ List, covering a total area of 104.7 million square (Ramsar 2008:Clause 6). kilometres (Figure 19.9; Table 19.4).

The strategic framework has objectives to: A further requirement for countries under the Convention is to prepare and implement appropriate management • establish national networks of Ramsar sites that fully represent the diversity of wetlands and their key plans for listed wetlands. Table 19.4 shows the regional ecological and hydrological functions extent of management planning instruments for inland

590 19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas

Figure 19.9 Distribution of inland freshwater Ramsar sites Source: Adapted from Ramsar Sites Information Service freshwater wetlands. The information provided does not indicate whether management plans are fully in place, Freshwater corridors regularly updated or effective in achieving the stated Rivers are nature’s natural corridors. The flow of water, objective. nutrients and sediments and the movement of species along streams generate consistent habitat in riparian Countries undertake to make wise use of all wetlands and corridors across terrestrial landscapes. These riparian and maintain their ecological character—the combination floodplain corridors are particularly biodiverse and often of the ecosystem components, processes and benefits/ form key habitat for animals in the terrestrial landscape services that characterise the wetland. The convention (Naiman et al. 1993). Tockner et al. (2008:51) conclude also records reports of adverse change in the ecological that ‘far more species of plants and animals occur on character of Ramsar sites (Finlayson et al. 2011). floodplains than in any other landscape unit in most These commitments are supported by an extensive suite regions of the world’. of guidance for managers (Ramsar 2011). Reviews of the convention’s implementation suggest Ramsar sites Consequently, the maintenance and restoration of have stronger legal status and are better conserved than riparian corridors are conservation priorities for both non-Ramsar protected areas (Bowman 2002). Kakadu freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems. National Park in Australia is an example of a prominent Ramsar site (Case Study 19.5).

Table 19.4 Number of inland freshwater wetlands included in the Ramsar List as of February 2014 Region Number of wetlands Area of wetlands Number of wetlands with (million sq km) management plans Africa 149 (19%) 71.2 (68%) 87 (58%) Asia 105 (13%) 4.9 (5%) 74 (70%) Europe 412 (52%) 5.5 (5%) 362 (85%) Neotropics 55 (7%) 16.8 (16%) 44 (80%) North America 51 (6%) 3.7 (4%) 47 (92%) Oceania 23 (3%) 2.6 (2%) 23 (100%) Total 795 104.7 637 (80%)

Source: Ramsar Sites Information Service

591 ProtectedCase AreaStudy Governance 19.5 and Wetlands Management of Kakadu National Park, Australia

Kakadu National Park (IUCN Category II) is located to the east of Darwin in the north of Australia (Figure 19.10) and covers approximately 20 000 square kilometres, including most of the catchment of the South Alligator River. Wetlands include mangroves, salt flats, freshwater floodplains, small lakes (billabongs) as well as springs and pools (Finlayson and Woodroffe 1996). The importance of the wetlands has been recognised by the Ramsar Convention and the World Heritage Convention. The park is a living cultural landscape and is jointly managed by Indigenous traditional landowners and the Federal Government. The management plan supports joint management and aims to maintain ‘a strong and successful partnership between traditional owners, governments, the tourism industry and Park user groups, providing world’s best practice in caring for country and sustainable tourism’ (Kakadu Board of Management 2007:8). The management plan and Ramsar ecological character description outline the major management issues (BMT WBM 2010). The park has active teams of rangers who control incursions of key weeds and introduced animals. Climate change and sea-level rise pose an increasing threat, with increased saltwater intrusion into freshwater wetlands and inland movement of mangroves. The mining Figure 19.10 Kakadu National Park and processing of uranium ore in an enclave surrounded by Source: US NPS adapted from © Clive Hilliker Australian National the park pose an ongoing threat to the wetlands. University

There are considerable benefits to be gained from restoring very few of these initiatives are centred on river corridors, riparian forests (Lukasiewicz et al. 2013). Riparian forests unlike many linkage projects that are replete with play key roles in providing organic matter that drives the biophysical barriers. Exceptions are the ‘room for rivers’ aquatic food chain, forming physical habitat, filtering floodplain restoration programs along major rivers, such out pollutants and maintaining appropriate water as those along the Danube (Ebert et al. 2009) and Rhine temperatures. As a result of their geomorphic evolution, (Case Study 19.6). These combine habitat restoration, rivers provide the most gentle elevation gradients in the corridor establishment and ecosystem-based adaptation landscape and thus the ideal corridors for changes in to climate change and reducing flood risk. distribution of many species under climate change. A key question for managers restoring riparian corridors Catchment and water planning in areas where land use is contested is ‘how wide is wide enough’. The simple answer is as wide as possible but Anthropogenic land use is a critical driver of terrestrial specific assessment is required in each case (Spackman and conditions that directly affect the structure, function Hughes 1995). The minimal answer could be wide enough and resilience of aquatic ecosystems (Dudgeon et al. to enable full development of the vegetation canopy to 2006), including within protected areas. Different maximise shade across the relevant water body and form places within a catchment will support varied movement an adequate mesic (moist, humid) microclimate. Riparian pathways for biotic and abiotic elements, which, in vegetation is often thick and forms extensive shade and turn, drive different aquatic processes (Figure 19.12). reduces air movement, forming a mesic microclimate that River catchments generally do not coincide with lines of supports particular species and resists fire. A more ideal human ownership, including protected area boundaries answer is that the full width of the regularly inundated (Figure 19.13), requiring managers to engage in riparian land should be restored—that is, the floodplain catchment-wide land and water-use planning outside as distinguished by wetland vegetation and soils (DWAF protected areas. These processes may include catchment 2008; Kotze et al. 1996). visioning, scenarios and trade-offs around water use and allocation, and granting of water licences for new In recent years landscape-scale linkage projects developments outside the protected area. (see Chapter 27) have commenced in many regions of the world, including Australia, the United States and Europe (Wyborn 2011; Fitzsimons et al. 2013). Surprisingly,

592 19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas

Unfortunately, conservation management has conventionally been separated from water resource management (Gilman et al. 2004). Protected area authorities, however, have a mandated responsibility to engage in planning for freshwater conservation. Where regional proactive development planning is absent, protected area authorities should catalyse these processes. Such proactive planning approaches will help to ensure that the water allocation and quality needed for freshwater conservation are met in downstream protected areas (Case Study 19.7). If the protected area is in a headwater catchment, protected area authorities may also wish to seek benefit-sharing opportunities for the water provided to downstream communities. Protected area authorities therefore act as powerful stakeholders and negotiators for freshwater conservation within integrated water resource management processes. Where water development (for example, the building of dams and other water schemes) upstream of a protected area is necessary, managers should insist on The Ovens River is protected as a free-flowing the establishment and enforcement of environmental ‘heritage river’, Australia flow requirements for sustaining ecosystems (Table 19.2; Source: Jamie Pittock Hirji and Davis 2009). managing a shared basin. Defining and managing for Catchment management plans are a means of sustainable levels of water withdrawal and water quality integrating the diverse land and water uses and owners, are common elements and will reinforce conservation who, combined, may directly or indirectly influence efforts within protected areas. the quality of a shared river system (Abell et al. 2007; Russi et al. 2013). They are opportunities for protected Learning forums help to build a common understanding, area managers to favourably influence stakeholders, vision and policy around water use and protection, rights-holders and neighbouring land users (Case Study which are critical to stimulating the cooperation 19.3). Successful examples of catchment management needed to support the sustainability of water resources and planning usually involve collaboration between (Ison and Watson 2007). To this end, protected area community, governmental and non-governmental managers should convene or participate in cross-sectoral stakeholders and rights-holders. Examples have been learning forums for effective integrated water resource documented in the United States (Flitcroft et al. 2009), management. At the grassroots level, protected area staff Australia (Curtis and Lockwood 2000), South may focus mainly on building trusting relationships Africa (King and Brown 2010) and Europe (Warner with other local stakeholders and rights-holders in the et al. 2013). More examples of what works and what catchments, seeking a common agreement on how to does not are becoming available (Sadoff et al. 2008). collectively meet everyone’s needs (Etienne et al. 2011). At the managerial level, engagement with water resource There are many names used globally for catchment decision-makers is required to ensure their policy management. The water sector often uses ‘integrated processes are aligned to the needs of the protected area water resources management’ for management across (Collins et al. 2009). At the protected area systems water-using sectors and stakeholders/rights-holders level, these forums should seek a common vision (GWP 2000). To focus on ecological units, many and cross-sectoral cooperation between departments organisations have focused on ‘integrated river basin (Roux et al. 2008). management’ (WWF 2003) and ‘integrated lake basin management’ (as discussed above). In North America, the term ‘watersheds’ is often applied to catchments. The concept is also applied to groundwater basin management. Regardless of the jargon, good catchment management engages multiple stakeholders and rights- holders in applying a common vision for sustainably

593 ProtectedCase AreaStudy Governance 19.6 and Millingerwaard, Management the Netherlands

The Millingerwaard is an area of former farmland on the with beavers, deer and geese, control vegetation to improve floodplain along the Rhine River (Figure 19.11). Alluvial spatial variety and create habitats for other species. forests, marshlands, natural grasslands, surface waters and Millingerwaard is a demonstration site for the ‘Living Rivers’ river dunes have been restored over two decades for nature vision developed by the World Wide Fund for Nature conservation, recreation and flood management (Bekhuis (WWF) in the Netherlands in the 1990s (Helmer et al. 1992). et al. 2005). The 800 hectares are a Natura 2000 site and The approach has been replicated along other parts of the IUCN Category II area managed by the State Forestry Rhine River to contribute to reduced flood risk, recreation Commission. and biodiversity conservation. An agreement with commercial clay and sand extraction The restored Millingerwaard has become a very popular companies saw extraction of historical clay deposits recreational area, and it is estimated there has been following the underlying geographical relief to uncover the an increase of €6 million a year in the regional economy natural structure of the riverine landscape (Bekhuis et al. (Bekhuis et al. 2005). Success factors include cooperation 2005). In this way river safety is improved by giving room between businesses and nature and water management for the river to manage flood peaks. Species like beaver agencies, and the economic benefits from recreation. (Castor fiber), badger (Meles meles), black stork (Ciconia Challenges include maintaining high natural values and nigra) and the white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) have flood safety—for example, inundation-free refuges for the returned to the floodplains. Old breeds of cattle and horses wild herbivores may obstruct river flow. that mimic extinct herbivores roam the area and, together

Floodplain restoration, Rhine River, at the Millingerwaard, the Netherlands Source: Dirk Oomen, Stroming Ltd.

594 19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas

Figure 19.11 Millingerwaard, the Netherlands, showing nature reserves developed along the Rhine River Source: © Clive Hilliker, The Australian National University

A range of climate change adaptation interventions has Climate change been proposed to better conserve freshwater biodiversity Climate has primary, direct and indirect sets of in wetland protected areas and river systems, including influences on the location, phenology and phenotypic a set of options detailed in Australia (Arthington 2012; expression of a water body, and the interactions within Lukasiewicz et al. 2013). These involve identifying populations and between species (Parmesan 2006). and prioritising conservation of parts of the freshwater Water flows and dependant biota are intimately linked landscape that may be more resilient to climate change to the climate (Poff and Matthews 2013). Climate and which can provide refugia, such as river reaches change will see the extension of the range of ‘new’ native shaded by mountains or those that form corridors that species into protected areas, and this may signal effective may enable species to move to more favourable habitats. autonomous adaptation rather than a species invasion Another option is to manage environmental flows to that should be resisted. Likewise, declines in abundance counter climate change impacts (Olden and Naiman may be evidence of a range shift. Species will need to 2010; Poff and Matthews 2013). Generally these flow be monitored and managed at a regional scale (Poff et measures are only possible on rivers with operable dams al. 2010). More sessile or isolated species may require (Pittock and Hartmann 2011). These approaches require assistance to disperse to and establish in new habitats management institutions to maintain infrastructure and (Hannah 2010). Further, managing for a fixed ecological make timely decisions—for instance, to release water community definition may be counterproductive to from dams. In contrast, free-flowing rivers do not require effective climate-adaptive management (Matthews et al. day-to-day management to provide the flows needed to 2011; Catford et al. 2012). conserve aquatic species, but they may be at risk from climate-induced changes that cannot be addressed without infrastructure (Pittock and Finlayson 2011).

595 Crop out Reference ID: Chapter19- gure13

Protected Area Governance and Management

FigureMovement 19.12 pathways Ecological dier for movementeither biotic or pathways: abiotic elements in Movementa stream system. pathways Abiotic elements differ must for movebiotic in theversus direction of abioticwater ow, elements compared in to abiotic stream elements system; that may abiotic only move in elementsthe direction must of ow, move but may in alsothe move direction against ofriver water ow. How flow, Planning for freshwater conservation by national comparedow pathways with of biotic biotic and elementsabiotic elements that intersect may also frames move the and provincial agencies in South Africa againstinteraction river between flow physical and ecological processes. Source: Dirk Roux Source: US Department of Agriculture

Many adaptation measures are ‘no regrets’ measures that ‘ecosystem management’, ‘ecosystem-based adaptation’ offer benefits for the environment and people regardless andCrop ‘ecosystem out Reference services’ ID: (IEMP Chapter19- 2011). gure14 These approaches of climate change. The restoration of riparian forests to often favour conservation of freshwater ecosystems. shade adjoining freshwater ecosystems and provide other conservation benefits is one example (Davies 2010). Too often, decision-makers fix their attention on one At Millingerwaard (Case Study 19.6), restoration of the intervention when each adaptation option has risks Rhine River floodplain as a climate change adaptation and costs as well as benefits that should be identified. measure reduces flood risk and conserves biodiversity. The adoption of a suite of different but complementary At any scale of organization, river catchments will most like cross The co-benefits for different groups of people associated interventions may spread risk, maximise benefits and avoid perverse outcomes. The use of environmental boundaries of human ownership or with these no-regrets adaptation measures provide management jurisdiction. At the flows on regulated rivers linked to protection of free- opportunities to build greater support from stakeholders scale of the Columbia River, the and rights-holders for conservation. flowing rivers is an example. With this in mind, entire catchment crosses Lukasiewicz et al. (2013) developed a catchment-scale international borders as well as Upgrading the safety standards of existing water framework for working with stakeholders and rights- state boundaries. infrastructure for climate change provides opportunities holders to assess the risks, costs and benefits of options The smaller Willamette River for protected area managers to secure further changes for climate change adaptation. As climate change will catchment crosses multiple county jurisdictions with to aid biodiversity adaptation, such as by installing fish impact most if not all protected areas, these measures land ownerships divided between passages on dams (Matthews et al. 2011; Pittock and can help managers to assess priorities and achieve the the US federal government, state of Hartmann 2011). Proposed engineering interventions best possible outcomes (see Chapter 17). Oregon, and private holdings. that use less water to conserve aquatic biodiversity, Figure known as ‘environmental water demand management’ or ‘environmental works and measures’, are politically appealing but risk unforeseen environmental impacts Conclusion and management failure, and should be considered with Although Earth’s area supporting freshwater and caution (Pittock et al. 2012; Case Study 19.7). estuarine ecosystems is relatively small, the biodiversity these systems support is particularly threatened at a Infrastructure includes both built and ‘natural’ global scale. We have outlined the characteristics of ecohydrological components of the landscape. Many diverse types of ecosystems and how their conservation institutions are promoting greater conservation of the is critical to a core mission of protected area managers in environment to increase resilience to climate change conserving biodiversity. impacts and aid adaptation. Jargon used to describe this approach includes ‘green infrastructure’, ‘natural capital’,

596 19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas

Figure 19.13 Catchments and jurisdictional boundaries: The Columbia River catchment crosses international and State/Provincial borders; the smaller Willamette River catchment crosses multiple local government borders and landownerships divided between the US Federal Government, the State of Oregon and private holdings Source: © Clive Hilliker, The Australian National University

Freshwater ecosystems are challenging to conserve wildlife and visitor activities are usually focused on because the ecological processes that drive them, water bodies, making them a target and a challenge for particularly water flows, are readily disrupted by people’s managers. demands for energy, food and water. People live by and irrevocably change freshwater systems, creating Many terrestrially focused protected areas involve challenges but also opportunities for protected area trade-offs and interventions that unwittingly degrade managers to gain new audiences and supporters. freshwater habitats. Hydropower and water-supply developments that establish or fund protected areas There are two golden rules for maintaining or restoring in catchments may do so at the expense of freshwater freshwater biodiversity. First, conserve the quality, biodiversity. In these circumstances, managers have an timing and volume of water flows. Second, ensure obligation to ensure freshwater biodiversity is conserved connectivity is retained—along rivers, between water as effectively as possible along the full length of rivers. bodies and their floodplains, and vertically with natural variability in the depth of water bodies and connectivity The reality of climate change will exacerbate competition with groundwater. This chapter has outlined why it is between people and ecosystems for fresh water in many critical and how protected area managers can engage parts of the world. There are conflicts and positive other stakeholders and rights-holders in landscape-scale synergies between different climate change mitigation water management. We urge managers to challenge and adaptation measures for water that protected area development proponents and operators to ensure that managers should engage. For example, planting trees existing and new water infrastructure are essential, to sequester carbon will normally diminish river flows, and if so, that the structures and management regimes whereas strengthening dams to meet greater climatic incorporate mitigation measures like environmental extremes provides opportunities to mitigate ecological flows and fish passage facilities. Within protected areas, impacts, such as by adding fish passage facilities and providing environmental flows. Further, rivers are the

597 ProtectedCase AreaStudy Governance 19.7 and Murray– Management Darling Basin Ramsar wetlands, Australia

The Murray–Darling Basin covers about 1 million square In 2012 a basin plan was adopted that could see up to 3200 kilometres (or one-seventh) of Australia (Figure 19.14). gigalitres per annum (29 per cent of the water diverted for Large floodplain forests and other wetlands cover more consumption) returned to the environment by 2024. The than 5.7 million hectares (5.6 per cent of the basin), with acquired water entitlements are owned and independently 636 300 hectares designated as 16 Ramsar sites (Pittock et managed for conservation by the Federal Government’s al. 2010). The tenure of these site includes nature reserves Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (Connell 2011). (IUCN Category II) managed by state governments and Engineering interventions known as ‘environmental NGOs, forestry and hunting reserves (IUCN Category VI) works and measures’ are being deployed in an attempt managed by state governments, and small areas of privately to conserve wetland biodiversity with less water. They risk managed pastoral lands (IUCN Category VI). The waters of disrupting habitat connectivity and concentrating salt in the basin are so exploited that median annual end-of-river wetlands, and rely on timely state government operations flows have fallen to 29 per cent of pre-development levels. and maintenance (Pittock et al. 2012). While restoring Vast areas of wetlands have suffered from changes in water adequate flows is important, other important actions flows, desiccation, salinity and acid sulphate generation have been overlooked, including restoring riparian forests, (Pittock and Finlayson 2011). protecting remaining free-flowing rivers, re-engineering In 2007–08 the national Water Act was adopted based dams to eliminate cold-water pollution and restoring fish on Australia’s obligations to implement the Convention passage (Pittock and Finlayson 2011). As the basin plan on Biological Diversity and the Ramsar Convention, and is to be revised at least every 10 years, there is increased requires conservation of key environmental assets and potential for further adaptive management of water ecosystem functions and services (Pittock et al. 2010). allocations and other measures.

Figure 19.14 Murray–Darling Basin, showing the location of 16 designated Ramsar wetlands Source: © Clive Hilliker, The Australian National University 598 19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas

Needs water: the desiccated, acidified and salinised Bottle Bend floodplain, Murray River, Australia Source: Jamie Pittock

natural landscape corridors with variable gradients, flows of water, nutrients and species for linking protected areas, including for climate change adaptation.

Conserving freshwater ecosystems also involves opportunities for securing the future of protected areas. People’s interest in clean and secure water and in freshwater ecosystems is an opportunity to involve neighbours and the broader public in collaborative visioning and management activities.

Of course, conservation of each ecosystem is linked to outcomes for others, and none more so than in the case of freshwater and marine protected areas. Rivers and many aquifers discharge into the sea, bringing with them nutrients that stoke, or pollutants and silt that smother marine communities. Rivers and estuaries are critical breeding grounds for many largely marine species necessitating integrated management. Yellowstone Falls and the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone River, Yellowstone National Park, USA, a World Heritage property. This outstanding river is an undisturbed tributary of the Missouri River, which then flows to the Mississippi River before the waters reach the Gulf of Mexico. Source: Graeme L. Worboys

599 Protected Area Governance and Management

Barron, O., Froend, R. H., Hodgson, G., Ali, R., References Dawes, W., Davies, P. and McFarlane, D. (2013) ‘Projected risks to groundwater-dependent terrestrial Recommended reading vegetation caused by changing climate and Abell, R., Allan, J. D. and Lehner, B. (2007) groundwater abstraction in the Central Perth Basin, ‘Unlocking the potential of protected areas for Western Australia’, Hydrological Processes, [online]. freshwaters’, Biological Conservation 134: 48–63.

Abell, R., Thieme, M., Revenga, C., Bryer, M., Baumgartner, L. J., Reynoldson, N. K., Cameron, L. and Kottelat, M., Bogutskaya, N., Coad, B., Mandrak, Stanger, J. G. (2009) ‘Effects of irrigation pumps on N., Contreras-Balderas, S., Bussing, W., Stiassny, M. riverine fish’,Fisheries Management and Ecology 16: L. J., Skelton, P., Allen, G. R., Unmack, P., Naseka, 429–37. A., Ng, R., Sindorf, N., Robertson, J., Armijo, Bekhuis, J., Litjens, G. and Braakhekke, W. (2005) E., Higgins, J., Heibel, T. J., Wikramanayake, E., A Policy Field Guide to the Gelderse Poort: A new, Olson, D., Lopez, H. L., Reis, R. E., Lundberg, sustainable economy under construction, WWF- J. G., Sabaj Perez, M. H. and Petry, P. (2008) Netherlands, Zeist. ‘Freshwater ecoregions of the world: a new map of biogeographic units for freshwater biodiversity Biggs, H. and Rogers, K. H. (2003) ‘An adaptive system conservation’, Bioscience 58: 403–14. to link science, monitoring and management in practice’, in J. T. du Toit, K. H. Rogers and H. Adams, J. B. (2013) ‘A review of methods and C. Biggs (eds) The Kruger Experience: Ecology and frameworks used to determine the environmental management of savanna heterogeneity, pp. 59–80, water requirements of estuaries’, Hydrological Island Press, Washington, DC. Sciences Journal 59: 451–65. BioFresh (2013) BioFresh data portal, BioFresh Project, Arthington, A. H. (2012) Environmental Flows: Berlin. Saving rivers in the third millennium, University of California Press, Berkeley. BMT WBM (2010) Ecological Character Description for Kakadu National Park Ramsar Site, Department of Arthington, A. H., Bunn, S. E., Poff, N. L. and Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Naiman, R. J. (2006) ‘The challenge of providing Communities, Canberra. environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems’, Ecological Applications 16: 1311–18. Borja, A., Basset, A., Bricker, S., Dauvin, J.-C., Elliott, M., Harrison, T. D., Marques, J.-C., Weisberg, S. B. Arthington, A. H., Naiman, R. J., McClain, M. E. and and West, R. (2011) ‘Classifying ecological quality Nilsson, C. (2010) ‘Preserving the biodiversity and and integrity of estuaries’, in E. Wolanski and D. ecological services of rivers: new challenges and McLusky (eds) Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal research opportunities’, Freshwater Biology 55: 1–16. Science, pp. 125–62, Academic Press, Waltham, Arthington, A. H., Rall, J. L., Kennard, M. J. and Pusey, MA. B. J. (2003) ‘Environmental flow requirements of fish Bossio, D., Geheb, K. and Critchley, W. (2010) in Lesotho rivers using the DRIFT methodology’, ‘Managing water by managing land: addressing land River Research and Applications 19: 641–66. degradation to improve water productivity and rural Balian, E. V., Segers, H., Martens, K. and Lévéque, C. livelihoods’, Agricultural Water Management 97: (2008) ‘The freshwater animal diversity assessment: 536–42. an overview of the results’, in E. V. Balian, C. Bovee, K. D. (1982) A guide to stream habitat analysis Lévêque, H. Segers and K. Martens (eds) Freshwater using the IFIM, US Fish and Wildlife Service Report Animal Diversity Assessment. Volume 198, Springer, FWS/OBS-82/26, Fort Collins, CO. Netherlands.

600 19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas

Bowman, M. (2002) ‘The Ramsar Convention on Collier, K. J. (2011) ‘The rapid rise of streams Wetlands: has it made a difference?’, in O. S. and rivers in conservation assessment’, Aquatic Stokke and Ø. B. Thommessen (eds) Yearbook of Conservation—Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 21: International Co-Operation on Environment and 397–400. Development 2002/2003, pp. 61–8, Earthscan, London. Collins, K., Colvin, J. and Ison, R. (2009) ‘Building “learning catchments” for integrated catchment Bowman, B., Higgs, S., Maclin, E., McClain, S., managing: designing learning systems based on Sicchio, M., Amy Souers, A., Johnson, S. and Brian experiences in the UK and South Africa’, Water Graber, B. (2002) Exploring Dam Removal: Science and Technology 59: 687–93. A decision-making guide, American Rivers and Trout Unlimited, Washington, DC, and Madison, WI. Commonwealth of Australia (2012) Basin Plan, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Brisbane Declaration (2007) The Brisbane Declaration. Connell, D. (2011) ‘The role of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder’, in D. Connell Brits, J., van Rooyen, M. W. and van Rooyen, N. and R. Q. Grafton (eds) Basin Futures: Water (2002) ‘Ecological impact of large herbivores on the reform in the Murray–Darling Basin, pp. 327–38, woody vegetation at selected watering points on the ANU E Press, Canberra. eastern basaltic soils in the Kruger National Park’, African Journal of Ecology 40: 53–60. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2010) X/28. Inland waters biodiversity, UNEP/CBD/ Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2004) ‘Hydrological functions of COP/DEC/X/28, Secretariat of the Convention tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees?’, on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 104: 185– 228. Curtis, A. and Lockwood, M. (2000) ‘Landcare and catchment management in Australia: lessons for Bunn, S. E. and Arthington, A. H. (2002) ‘Basic state-sponsored community participation’, Society principles and ecological consequences of altered and Natural Resources: An International Journal 13: flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity’,Environmental 61–73. Management 30: 492–507. Darwall, W. R. T., Smith, K. G., Allen, D. J., Holland, Campbell-Grant, E. H., Lowe, W. H. and Fagan, R. A., Harrison, I. J. and Brooks, E. D. E. (2011) W. F. (2007) ‘Living in the branches: population The Diversity of Life in African Freshwaters: dynamics and ecological processes in dendritic Underwater, under threat. An analysis of the networks’, Ecology Letters 10: 165–75. distribution of freshwater species throughout mainland Africa, Cambridge Publishers, Cambridge and Catford, J., Naiman, R., Chambers, L., Roberts, J., Gland. Douglas, M. and Davies, P. (2012) ‘Predicting novel riparian ecosystems in a changing climate’, Davies, P. M. (2010) ‘Climate change implications for Ecosystems 16: 382–400. river restoration in global biodiversity hotspots’, Restoration Ecology 18: 261–8. Chape, S., Spalding, M. and Jenkins, M. D. (2008) The World’s Protected Areas, Prepared by the UNEP- Davies, P. M., Naiman, R. J., Warfe, D. M., Pettit, WCMC, University of California Press, Berkeley. N. E., Arthington, A. H. and Bunn, S. E. (2014) ‘Flow–ecology relationships: closing the loop Chatterjee, A., Phillips, B. and Stroud, D. A. on effective environmental flows’,Marine and (2008) Wetland Management Planning: A guide for Freshwater Research 65: 133–41. site managers, WWF, Wetlands International, IUCN and Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland. Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A. H., Gessner, M. O., Kawabata, Z. I., Knowler, D. J., Lévêque, C., Chessman, B. C. (2013) ‘Do protected areas benefit Naiman, R. J., Prieur‐Richard, A. H., Soto, D. freshwater species? A broad-scale assessment for fish and Stiassny, M. L. (2006) ‘Freshwater biodiversity: in Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin’, Journal importance, threats, status and conservation of Applied Ecology 50: 969–76. challenges’, Biological Reviews 81: 163–82.

601 Protected Area Governance and Management

Dudley, N. (ed.) (2013) Guidelines for Applying Finlayson, C. M. and Woodroffe, C. D. (1996) Protected Area Management Categories, IUCN, ‘Wetland vegetation’, in C. M. Finlayson and I. von Gland. Oertzen (eds) Landscape and Vegetation Ecology of the Kakadu Region, Northern Australia, pp. 81–112, Dujovny, E. (2009) ‘The deepest cut: political ecology Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. in the dredging of a new sea mouth in Chilika Lake, Orissa, India’, Conservation & Society 7: 192–204. Finlayson, C. M., Davidson, N., Pritchard, D., Milton, G. R. and MacKay, H. (2011) ‘The Ramsar Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) Convention and ecosystem-based approaches to the (2008) Updated Manual for the Identification wise use and sustainable development of wetlands’, and Delineation of Wetlands and Riparian Areas, Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 14: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria. 176–98.

Dyson, M., Bergkamp, G. and Scanlon, J. (eds) (2003) Finlayson, C. M., Davidson, N. C., Spiers, A. G. Flow: The essentials of environmental flows, IUCN, and Stevenson, N. J. (1999) ‘Global wetland Gland. inventory—current status and future priorities’, Eamus, D. and Froend, R. (2006) ‘Groundwater- Marine and Freshwater Research 50: 717–27. dependent ecosystems: the where, what and why of Fitzsimons, J., Pulsford, I. and Wescott, G. (2013) GDEs’, Australian Journal of Botany 54: 91–6. ‘Lessons from large-scale conservation networks in Eamus, D., Froend, R., Loomes, R., Hose, G. and Australia’, Parks 19: 115–25. Murray, B. (2006) ‘A functional methodology for Fleckenstein, J., Anderson, M., Fogg, G. and Mount, determining the groundwater regime needed to J. (2004) ‘Managing surface water–groundwater to maintain the health of groundwater-dependent restore fall flows in the Cosumnes River’,Journal vegetation’, Australian Journal of Botany 54: 97–114. of Water Resources Planning and Management 130: Ebert, S., Hulea, O. and Strobel, D. (2009) ‘Floodplain 301–10. restoration along the Lower Danube: a climate Flitcroft, R. L., Dedrick, D. C., Smith, C. L., Thieman, change adaptation case study’, Climate and C. A. and Bolte, J. P. (2009) ‘Social infrastructure to Development 1: 212–19. integrate science and practice: the experience of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2012) Long Tom Watershed Council’, Ecology and Society Estuaries and Coastal Watersheds, United States 14(36). DC. Freshwater Fish Specialist Group (FFSG) (2013) Global Esselman, P. and Allan, J. D. (2011) ‘Application Freshwater Fish Bioblitz, IUCN Freshwater Fish of species distribution models and conservation Specialist Group, Chester, UK. planning software to the design of a reserve network Froend, R. and Sommer, B. (2010) ‘Phreatophytic for the riverine fishes of northeastern Mesoamerica’, vegetation response to climatic and abstraction- Freshwater Biology 56: 71–88. induced groundwater drawdown: examples of long- Etienne, M., du Toit, D. R. and Pollard, S. (2011) term spatial and temporal variability in community ‘ARDI: a co-construction method for participatory response’, Ecological Engineering 36: 1191–200. modeling in natural resources management’, Ecology Ghosh, A. K., Pattnaik, A. K. and Ballatore, T. J. (2006) and Society 16: 44. ‘Chilika Lagoon: restoring ecological balance and Faleiro, F. V. and Loyola, R. D. (2013) ‘Socioeconomic livelihoods through re-salinization’, Lakes & Reservoirs: and political trade-offs in biodiversity conservation: Research & Management 11: 239–55. a case study of the Cerrado Biodiversity Hotspot, Gilman, R. T., Abell, R. A. and Williams, C. E. (2004) Brazil’, Diversity and Distributions 19: 977–87. ‘How can conservation biology inform the practice Finlayson, C. M. and van der Valk, A. G. (1995) of integrated river basin management?’, International ‘Wetland classification and inventory: a summary’, Journal of River Basin Management 2: 135–48. Vegetation 118: 185–92.

602 19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) (2014) Herron, N., Davis, R. and Jones, R. (2002) ‘The effects Global Biodiversity Information Facility, GBIF of large-scale afforestation and climate change on Secretariat, Copenhagen. water allocation in the Macquarie River catchment, NSW, Australia’, Journal of Environmental Global Water Partnership (GWP) (2000) Integrated Management 65: 369–81. Water Resources Management, Global Water Partnership, Stockholm. Higgins, J. V., Bryer, M. T., Khoury, M. L. and FitzHugh, T. W. (2005) ‘A freshwater classification Government of Queensland (2014) ‘WetlandInfo’, approach for biodiversity conservation planning’, Queensland Wetlands Program, Government of Conservation Biology 19: 432–45. Queensland, Brisbane. Hirji, R. and Davis, R. (2009) Environmental Flows in Water Resources Policies, Plans, and Projects. Findings Hadwen, W. L., Boon, P. J. and Arthington, A. H. and recommendations, The International Bank for (2012) ‘Aquatic ecosystems in inland Australia: Reconstruction and Development and The World tourism and recreational significance, ecological Bank, Washington, DC. impacts and imperatives for management’, Marine and Freshwater Research 63: 325–40. Hooijer, A., Page, S., Canadell, J. G., Silvius, M., Kwadijk, J., Wösten, H. and Jauhiainen, J. (2010) Haefner, A. (2013) ‘Regional environmental security: ‘Current and future CO emissions from drained cooperation and challenges in the Mekong 2 peatlands in Southeast Asia’, Biogeosciences 7(5): subregion’, Global Change, Peace and Security 25: 1505–14. 27–41. Horwitz, P., Bradshaw, D., Hopper, S., Davies, P., Hannah, L. (2010) ‘A global conservation system for Froend, R. and Bradshaw, F. (2008) ‘Hydrological climate-change adaptation’, Conservation Biology change escalates risk of ecosystem stress in Australia’s 24(1): 70–7. threatened biodiversity hotspot’, Journal of the Royal Hatton, T. and Evans, R. (1998) Dependence of Society of Western Australia 91: 1–12. Ecosystems on Groundwater and its Significance Howard, B. C. (2012) ‘Salmon re-enter Olympic to Australia, Land and Water Research and National Park river thanks to Elwha Dam removal’, Development Corporation, Canberra. National Geographic NewsWatch, 21 August 2012. Helfield, J. M. and Naiman, R. J. (2006) ‘Keystone

Helmer, W., Litjens, G., Overmars, W., Barneveld, H., Illueca, J. and Rast, W. (1996) ‘Precious, finite and Kink, A., Sterenburg, H. and Janssen, B. (1992) irreplaceable’, Our Planet 8.

Hermoso, V., Kennard, M. J. and Linke, S. (2012a) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘Integrating multidirectional connectivity (2007) Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. requirements in systematic conservation planning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate for freshwater systems’, Diversity and Distributions Change 2007: Working Group II. Contribution to the 18: 448–58. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Hermoso, V., Linke, S., Prenda, J. and Possingham, Climate Change, Geneva. H. P. (2011) ‘Addressing longitudinal connectivity in the systematic conservation planning of fresh International Ecosystem Management Partnership waters’, Freshwater Biology 56: 57–70. (IEMP) (2011) Restoring the natural foundation to sustain a green economy, UNEP Policy Series Hermoso, V., Ward, D. P. and Kennard, M. J. (2012b) on Ecosystem Management No. 6, International ‘Using water residency time to enhance spatio- Ecosystem Management Partnership, United temporal connectivity for conservation planning in Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. seasonally dynamic freshwater ecosystems’, Journal of Applied Ecology 49: 1028–35.

603 Protected Area Governance and Management

International Lake Environment Committee Junk, W. J., Nunes da Cunha, C., Wantzen, K. M., Foundation (ILEC) (2005) Managing Lakes and Petermann, P., Strüssmann, C., Marques, M. I. and their Basins for Sustainable Use: A report for lake Adis, J. (2006) ‘Biodiversity and its conservation basin managers and stakeholders, International Lake in the Pantanal of Mato Grosso, Brazil’, Aquatic Environment Committee Foundation, Kusatsu, Sciences 68: 278–309. Japan. Kakadu Board of Management (2007) Kakadu National International Union for Conservation of Nature Park Management Plan 2007–2014, Government of (IUCN) (2003) Guidelines for Application of IUCN Australia, Canberra. Red List Criteria at Regional Levels: Version 3.0, IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland and Khoury, M., Higgins, J. and Weitzell, R. (2011) Cambridge. ‘A freshwater conservation assessment of the Upper Mississippi River basin using a coarse- and fine-filter Ison, R. and Watson, D. (2007) ‘Illuminating the approach’, Freshwater Biology 56: 162–79. possibilities for social learning in the management of Scotland’s water’, Ecology and Society 12: 21. King, J. and Brown, C. (2010) ‘Integrated basin flow assessments: concepts and method development in Africa and South-East Asia’, Freshwater Biology 55: Jackson, R. B., Jobbágy, E. G., Avissar, R., Roy, S. B., 127–46. Barrett, D. J., Cook, C. W., Farley, K. A., le Maitre, D. C., McCarl, B. A. and Murray, B. C. (2005) King, J., Brown, C. and Sabet, H. (2003) ‘A scenario- ‘Trading water for carbon with biological carbon based holistic approach to environmental sequestration’, Science 310: 1944–7. flow assessments for rivers’,River Research and Applications 19(5–6): 619–39. Jeffres, C. A., Opperman, J. J. and Moyle, P. B. (2008) ‘Ephemeral floodplain habitats provide best growth Kingsford, R. T., Biggs, H. C. and Pollard, S. R. (2011) conditions for juvenile Chinook salmon in a ‘Strategic adaptive management in freshwater California river’, Environmental Biology of Fishes 83: protected areas and their rivers’, Biological 449–58. Conservation 144: 1194–203. Kleinschmidt Associates (2008) Cosumnes River Preserve Joosten, H. (2009) The Global Peatland CO2 Picture: Peatland status and drainage related emissions in all Management Plan, Cosumnes River Preserve, countries of the world, Greifswald University and Galt, CA. Wetlands International, Waganingen, Netherlands. Knight, A. T., Grantham, H. S., Smith, R. J., Joosten, H. and Clarke, D. (2002) Wise Use of Mires McGregor, G. K., Possingham, H. P. and Cowling, and Peatlands: Background and principles including R. M. (2011) ‘Land managers’ willingness-to-sell a framework for decision-making, International Mire defines conservation opportunity for protected area Conservation Group and International Peat Society, expansion’, Biological Conservation 144: 2623–30. Saarijärvi, Finland. Kotze, D. C., Klug, J. R., Hughes, J. C. and Breen, C. Joosten, H., Tapio-Biström, M. L. and Tol, S. (eds) M. (1996) ‘Improved criteria for classifying hydric (2012) Peatlands: Guidance for climate change soils in South Africa’, South African Journal of Plant mitigation through conservation, rehabilitation and and Soil 13(3): 67–73. sustainable use, FAO and Wetlands International, Kumar, R. and Pattnaik, A. K. (2012) Chilika: An Rome and Ede, Netherlands. integrated management planning framework for Junk, W. J. and Nunes da Cunha, C. (2012) ‘Wetland conservation and wise use, Wetlands International- management challenges in the South-American South Asia and Chilika Development Authority, Pantanal and the international experience’, in New Delhi and Bhubaneswar, India. A. A. R. Loris (ed.) Tropical Wetland Management: Laizé, C. L. R., Acreman, M. C., Schneider, C., The South-American Pantanal and the international Dunbar, M. J., Houghton-Carr, H. A., Flörke, experience, pp. 315–32, Ashgate, Farnham, UK. M. and Hannah, D. M. (2014) ‘Projected flow alteration and ecological risk for pan-European rivers’, River Research and Applications 30: 299–314.

604 19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas

Lehner, B. and Döll, P. (2004) ‘Development and Moilanen, A., Leathwick, J. R. and Quinn, J. M. validation of a global database of lakes, reservoirs (2011) ‘Spatial prioritization of conservation and wetlands’, Journal of Hydrology 296: 1–22. management’, Conservation Letters 4: 383–93.

Lindloff, S. (2000) Dam Removal: A citizen’s guide to Mosisch, T. D. and Arthington, A. H. (1998) ‘A review restoring rivers, River Alliance of Wisconsin and of literature examining the effects of water-based, Trout Unlimited, Madison, WI, and Arlington, VA. powered recreational activities on lakes and rivers’, Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Management 3: Linke, S., Kennard, M. J., Hermoso, V., Olden, J. 1–17. D., Stein, J. and Pusey, B. J. (2012) ‘Merging connectivity rules and large-scale condition Naiman, R. J., Decamps, H. and Pollock, M. (1993) assessment improves conservation adequacy in river ‘The role of riparian corridors in maintaining systems’, Journal of Applied Ecology 49: 1036–45. regional biodiversity’, Ecological Applications 3: 209–12. Loneragan, N. R. and Bunn, S. E. (1999) ‘River flows and estuarine ecosystems: implications for coastal Nakamura, M. and Rast, W. (2011) Development of fisheries from a review and a case study of the Logan ILBM Platform Process: Evolving guidelines through River, southeast Queensland’, Australian Journal of participatory improvement, ILEC, Kusatsu, Japan. Ecology 24: 431–40. Nakamura, M. and Rast, W. (2012) Primer: Development Lukasiewicz, A., Finlayson, C. M. and Pittock, J. of ILBM Platform Process – Evolving guidelines (2013) Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation into through participatory improvement, International Lake Catchment Management: A user guide, Charles Sturt Environment Committee, Kusatsu and Research University, Albury, NSW. Centre for Sustainability and Environment, Shiga University. McFarlane, D., Strawbridge, M., Stone, R. and Paton, A. (2012) ‘Managing groundwater levels in the Nakamura, M., Yoshihiko, O., Michio, A. and Moriyasu, face of uncertainty and change: a case study from K. (2012) ‘Evolving history of Lake Biwa and Yodo Gnangara’, Water Science and Technology: Water River basin management’, in H. Kawanabi, M. Supply 12: 321–8. Nishino and M. Maehata (eds) Lake Biwa: Interactions between Nature and People, pp. 371–417, Springer, Matthews, J. H., Wickel, B. A. and Freeman, S. Dordrecht. (2011) ‘Converging currents in climate-relevant conservation: water, infrastructure, and institutions’, Nel, J. L., Reyers, B., Roux, D. J., Impson, N. D. and PLoS Biology 9: 1 001 159. Cowling, R. M. (2011) ‘Designing a conservation area network that supports the representation and Micklin, P. and Aladin, N. V. (2008) ‘Reclaiming the persistence of freshwater biodiversity’, Freshwater Aral Sea’, Scientific American 298: 64–71. Biology 56: 106–24.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Nirupama, N. and Simonovic, S. P. (2007) ‘Increase of Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands flood risk due to urbanisation: a Canadian example’, and water synthesis, World Resources Institute, Natural Hazards 40: 25–41. Washington, DC. Nunes da Cunha, C. and Junk, W. J. (2011) ‘A Miller, C. (2005) The Snowy River Story: The grassroots preliminary classification of habitats of the Pantanal of campaign to save a national icon, ABC Books, Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul, and its relation Sydney. to national and international classification systems’, in W. J. Junk, C. J. da Silva, C. Nunes da Cunha and K. Mohapatra, A., Mohanty, R. K., Mohanty, S. K., M. Wantzen (eds) The Pantanal: Ecology, biodiversity Bhatta, K. S. and Das, N. R. (2007) ‘Fisheries and sustainable management of a large neotropical enhancement and biodiversity assessment of fish, seasonal wetland, pp. 127–41, Pensoft, Sofia. prawn and mud crab in Chilika lagoon through hydrological intervention’, Wetlands Ecology and Olden, J. D. and Naiman, R. J. (2009) ‘Incorporating Management 15: 229–51. thermal regimes into environmental flows assessments: modifying dam operations to restore freshwater ecosystem integrity’, Freshwater Biology 55: 86–107.

605 Protected Area Governance and Management

Olden, J. D. and Naiman, R. J. (2010) ‘Incorporating Poff, N. L. and Matthews, J. H. (2013) ‘Environmental thermal regimes into environmental flows assessments: flows in the Anthropocence: past progress and modifying dam operations to restore freshwater future prospects’, Current Opinion in Environmental ecosystem integrity’, Freshwater Biology 55(1): 86–107. Sustainability 5: 667–75.

Palmer, M. A., Reidy Liermann, C. A., Nilsson, C., Poff, N. L., Richter, B. D., Arthington, A. H., Bunn, S. Flörke, M., Alcamo, J., Lake, P. S. and Bond, N. E., Naiman, R. J., Kendy, E., Acreman, M., Apse, (2008) ‘Climate change and the world’s river basins: C., Bledsoe, B. P., Freeman, M. C., Henriksen, J., anticipating management options’, Frontiers in Ecology Jacobson, R. B., Kennen, J. G., Merritt, D. M., and the Environment 6: 81–9. O’Keeffe, J. H., Olden, J. D., Rogers, K., Tharme, R. E. and Warner, A. (2010) ‘The ecological Parmesan, C. (2006) ‘Ecological and evolutionary limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new responses to recent climate change’, Annual Review framework for developing regional environmental of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics: 637–69. flow standards’,Freshwater Biology 55: 147–70.

Parmesan, C., Duarte, C., Poloczanska, E., Richardson, Pollard, S. and du Toit, D. (2011) ‘Towards adaptive A. J. and Singer, M. C. (2011) ‘Overstretching integrated water resources management in southern attribution’, Nature Climate Change 1: 2–4. Africa: the role of self-organisation and multi-scale Pearson, R. G. (2007) Species Distribution Modelling for feedbacks for learning and responsiveness in the Conservation Educators and Practitioners: Synthesis, Letaba and Crocodile catchments’, Water Resources American Museum of Natural History, New York. Management 25: 4019–35. Porter, I. C. and Shivakumar, J. (2010) Doing a Dam Perissinotto, R., Stretch, D. D. and Taylor, R. H. Better: The Lao People’s Democratic Republic and (eds) (2013) Ecology and Conservation of Estuarine the story of Nam Theun 2 (NT2), The World Bank, Ecosystems: Lake St Lucia as a global model, Washington, DC. Cambridge University Press, New York. Postel, S. and Richter, B. (2003) Rivers for Life: Pittock, J. and Finlayson, C. M. (2011) ‘Australia’s Managing water for people and nature, Island Press, Murray–Darling Basin: freshwater ecosystem Washington, DC. conservation options in an era of climate change’, Postel, S. L. and Thompson, B. H. (2005) ‘Watershed Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 232–43. protection: capturing the benefits of nature’s water Pittock, J., Finlayson, C. M. and Howitt, J. A. (2012) supply services’, Natural Resources Forum 29: 98– ‘Beguiling and risky: “environmental works and 108. measures” for wetlands conservation under a Rahel, F. J., Bierwagen, B. and Taniguchi, Y. (2008) changing climate’, Hydrobiologia 708: 111–31. ‘Managing aquatic species of conservation concern Pittock, J., Finlayson, C. M., Gardner, A. and McKay, in the face of climate change and invasive species’, C. (2010) ‘Changing character: the Ramsar Conservation Biology 22: 551–61. Convention on Wetlands and climate change in the Ramsar (2002) Guidelines for Global Action on Peatlands Murray Basin’, Environmental and Planning Law (GAP), Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland. Journal 27: 401–25. Ramsar (2005) Resolution IX.4: The Ramsar Convention Pittock, J. and Hartmann, J. (2011) ‘Taking a second and conservation, production and sustainable use of look: climate change, periodic re-licensing and fisheries resources, Ramsar Convention Secretariat, better management of old dams’, Marine and Gland. Freshwater Research 62: 312–20. Ramsar (2008) Strategic Framework and Guidelines Pittock, J., Hussey, K. and McGlennon, S. (2013) for the Future Development of the List of Wetlands ‘Australian climate, energy and water policies: of International Importance of the Convention on conflicts and synergies’,Australian Geographer 44: Wetlands, Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland. 3–22.

606 19. Managing Freshwater, River, Wetland and Estuarine Protected Areas

Ramsar (2009a) Convention on Wetlands of International Sommer, B. and Froend, R. (2011) ‘Resilience Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat. Ramsar of phreatophytic vegetation to groundwater (Iran), 2 February 1971. UN Treaty Series No. drawdown: is recovery possible under a drying 14583. As amended by the Paris Protocol, 3 December climate?’, Ecohydrology 4: 67–82. 1982, and Regina Amendments, 28 May 1987, Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland. Sommer, B. and Froend R. H. (2014) ‘Alternative states of phreatophytic vegetation in a drying Ramsar (2009b) Information sheet on Ramsar wetlands Mediterranean-type landscape’, Journal of Vegetation (RIS), Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland. Science 25: 1045–55.

Ramsar (2011) The Ramsar Handbooks for the Spackman, S. C. and Hughes, J. W. (1995) ‘Assessment Wise Use of Wetlands, 4th edn, Ramsar Convention of minimum stream corridor width for biological Secretariat, Gland. conservation: species richness and distribution along mid-order streams in Vermont, USA’, Biological Richardson, S., Irvine, E., Froend, R., Boon, P., Conservation 71: 325–32. Barber, S. and Bonneville, B. (2011a) Australian groundwater-dependent ecosystems toolbox part 1: Tennant, D. L. (1976) ‘Instream flow regimens for assessment framework, Waterlines Report Series 69, fish, wildlife, recreation and related environmental National Water Commission, Canberra. resources’, Fisheries 1: 6–10.

Richardson, S., Irvine, E., Froend, R., Boon, P., Tharme, R. E. (2003) ‘A global perspective on Barber, S. and Bonneville, B. (2011b) Australian environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in groundwater-dependent ecosystems toolbox part the development and application of environmental 2: assessment tools, Waterlines Report Series 70, flow methodologies for rivers’,River Research and National Water Commission, Canberra. Applications 19: 397–441.

Richter, B. D., Baumgartner, J. V., Powell, J. and Tockner, K., Bunn, S. E., Gordon, C., Naiman, R. J., Braun, D. P. (1996) ‘A method for assessing Quinn, G. P., Standord, J. and Polunin, N. (2008) hydrologic alteration within ecosystems’, ‘Flood plains: critically threatened ecosystems’, in N. Conservation Biology 10: 1163–74. Polunin (ed.) Aquatic Ecosystems: Trends and global prospects, pp. 45–61, Cambridge University Press, Richter, B. D., Warner, A. T., Meyer, J. L. and Lutz, Cambridge. K. (2006) ‘A collaborative and adaptive process for developing environmental flow recommendations’, Turner, L., Tracey, D., Tilden, J. and Dennison, W. C. River Research and Applications 22: 297–318. (2004) Where River Meets Sea: Exploring Australia’s estuaries, Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Roux, D. J., Ashton, P. J., Nel, J. L. and MacKay, Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, Brisbane. H. M. (2008) ‘Improving cross-sector policy integration and cooperation in support of freshwater Turpie, J. K. and Clark, B. M. (2007) The Health Status, conservation’, Conservation Biology 22: 1382–7. Conservation Importance, and Economic Value of Temperate South African Estuaries and Development Russi, D., Ten Brink, P., Farmer, A., Badura, T., Coates, of a Regional Conservation Plan, AEC/07/01, Anchor D., Förster, J., Kumar, R. and Davidson, N. (2013) Environmental Consultants, Cape Town. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands, IEEP, London and Brussels. Turpie, J. K., Sihlope, N., Carter, A., Maswime, T. and Hosking, S. (2007) ‘Maximising the socio- Sadoff, C., Greiber, T., Smith, M. and Bergkamp, G. economic benefits of estuaries through integrated (2008) Share: Managing water across boundaries, planning and management: a rationale and protocol IUCN, Gland. for incorporating and enhancing estuary values Sheldon, A. L. (1988) ‘Conservation of stream fishes: in planning and management’, in Profiling estuary patterns of diversity, rarity, and risk’, Conservation management in integrated development planning in Biology 2: 149–56. South Africa with particular reference to the Eastern Cape Province, Appendix 1, Water Research Commission Shiklomanov, I. A. (1993) ‘World fresh water Publication 1485/1/07, Water Research Commission, resources’, in P. H. Gleick (ed.) Water in Crisis, Pretoria. pp. 13–24, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

607 Protected Area Governance and Management van Dijk, A. I. J. M. and Keenan, R. J. (2007) ‘Planted forests and water in perspective’, Forest Ecology and Management 251: 1–9. van Niekerk, L. and Turpie, J. K. (eds) (2012) South African National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: Technical report. Volume 3: Estuary component, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Vörösmarty, C. J., McIntyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., Glidden, S., Bunn, S. E., Sullivan, C. A., Liermann, C. R. and Davies, P. M. (2010) ‘Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity’, Nature 467: 555–61.

Ward, J. V. (1989) ‘The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems’, Journal of the North American Benthological Society 8: 2–8.

Warner, J. F., van Buuren, A. and Edelenbos, J. (eds) (2013) Making Space for the River: Governance experiences with multifunctional river flood management in the US and Europe, IWA Publishing, London.

Whipple, A. (2012) Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Historical Ecology Investigation: Exploring pattern and process, San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA.

Whitfield, A. K., Bate, G. C., Adams, J. B., Cowley, P. D., Froneman, P. W., Gama, P. T., Strydom, N. A., Taljaard, S., Theron, A. K., Turpie, J. K., van Niekerk, L. and Wooldridge, T. H. (2012) ‘A review of the ecology and management of temporarily open/closed estuaries in South Africa, with particular emphasis on river flow and mouth state as primary drivers of these systems’, African Journal of Marine Science 34: 163–80.

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (2003) Managing Rivers Wisely: Lessons from WWF’s work for integrated river basin management, WWF, Gland.

Wyborn, C. (2011) ‘Landscape scale ecological connectivity: Australian survey and rehearsals’, Pacific Conservation Biology 17: 121–31.

608 This text taken from Protected Area Governance and Management, edited by Graeme L. Worboys, Michael Lockwood, Ashish Kothari, Sue Feary and Ian Pulsford, published 2015 by ANU Press, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

Reproduction of this ANU Press publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder, provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.